On Sunday 08 March 2015 17:35:13 Paul Walmsley wrote: > On Sun, 8 Mar 2015, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Friday 06 March 2015 23:23:06 Aaro Koskinen wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:36:32AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > Are there any fixes in this series that should go into > > > > v4.0-rc series, or can it all wait for v4.1? > > > > > > I think these all should wait for v4.1. > > > > > > A. > > > > I would suggest to include at least patches 01, 04, 06. > > Probably those could go to -stable tree... but this > > decision is up to you. > > I'm not sure patch 1 is a fix. As far as I know we haven't > run into any issues with it on real hardware - only on QEMU - > unless you know otherwise, Pali? Are we sure that the QEMU > model behavior matches the hardware? > > > - Paul Patch 1 check for return value of more functions. If real HW or software emulated HW (in qemu) does not support e.g. aes then kernel show oops message, because kernel does not check return values and try to touch non-existent HW. So I think patch 1 is really fix. In my opinion if something can fail, then kernel should check if it failed. And not expect that function call always pass. -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
