On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 7:36 AM Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 02:25:45PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 01:09:25PM +0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 12:45, Russell King (Oracle) > >> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > Ping? > >> > > >> > >> The intent is good. > >> The implementation is incomplete. > >> > >> Please respond or address review feedback emailed previously. See > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CADWks+Z5iZ=P_OAanA-PiePFbMpwtRe3_dF8wRTak8YAi87zvQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#t > > > >> Did you test that things are successful wtih kmod 29, 30, 31? > > > >No I didn't. See my comment below the "---" line: > > > >"I don't know what the minimum requirement is for SHA3 to work, so I > >have chosen a minimum of version 29 for the purposes of this patch." > > > >> The code to correctly support sha3 in kmod was committed after 31 was > >> tagged, and there is no newer tag yet hence the revision that has the > >> correct code is v31-6-g510c8b7f74. > > > >Thanks for the information. > > > >> If such check is desired, kmod 32 should be tagged and check should > >> check for 32. > > > >"If such a check is desired" ? You mean you prefer systems to segfault > >during the installation step when the build system doesn't have a new > >enough kmod? > > I don't think we should check the version number at all to workaround > bugs like that. It'd better we let distros to port the fix. If we need > a 29.1, 30.1, 31.1 kmod releases to make this common for distros, > I can help make that happen. > > Lucas De Marchi I think Russell's comments are sensible. But, if Lucas back-ports a fix-up to older kmod versions, that sounds great too, as I do not need to pick up this patch. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
