netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] nfc: st95hf: switch to using sleeping variants of gpiod API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2a72c443-2aa8-4a98-ae2e-62a781e0dd94@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 15:53:21 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] nfc: st95hf: switch to using sleeping variants
 of gpiod API

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 10:10:37AM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> On 8/20/24 03:10, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > The driver does not not use gpiod API calls in an atomic context. Switch
> 
> please remove one "not"
> 
> > to gpiod_set_value_cansleep() calls to allow using the driver with GPIO
> > controllers that might need process context to operate.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> 
> Code is fine, but why not as a fix?

Why would this be a fix? What is broken?

    Andrew