On 10/15/2024 3:34 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 02:42:08PM +0530, Gupta, Akshay wrote:
On 10/13/2024 8:49 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 07:08:06AM +0000, Akshay Gupta wrote:
--- a/include/uapi/misc/amd-apml.h
+++ b/include/uapi/misc/amd-apml.h
@@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ struct apml_message {
__u32 mb_in[2];
__u8 reg_in[8];
} data_in;
+ /*
+ * Error code is returned in case of soft mailbox
+ */
+ __u32 fw_ret_code;
} __attribute__((packed));
You can not just randomly change the size of a user/kernel structure
like this, what just broke because of this?
confused,
The changes are not because of anything is broken, we support 3 different
protocol under 1 IOCTL using the same structure. I split the patch to make
it easy to review.
Modification in patch 4, is only for the existing code. This patch (patch 5)
has additional functionality, so we do not want add multiple changes in
single patch (patch 4).
The changes done in patches are as follows:
Patch 4:
- Adding basic structure as per current protocol in upstream kernel
So what if we only take the first 4 patches? Now any changes after that
would change the user/kernel api and break things.
Yes, it will break. We need all the patches to go.
Please don't write changes and then "fix them up" later on, that's not
how to do stuff as it makes it very difficult to review. What would you
want to see if _you_ had to review this patch series?
We submitted a single patch in v1, later split the patch based on each
functionality for ease of review.
I will squash and submit along with other review comments addressed.
thanks,
greg k-h
