Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] Revert "thunderbolt: Prevent crash if non-active
 NVMem file is read"
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@outlook.com.au>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <PSXP216MB0438FE68DAAFC23CB9AAD5E180E70@PSXP216MB0438.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <PSXP216MB04388C56BECC4CE5EC81EA2680E70@PSXP216MB0438.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <20200303103310.GN2540@lahna.fi.intel.com>
 <PSXP216MB04384541A10255DF4E70F4D480E50@PSXP216MB0438.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <20200304161827.GQ2540@lahna.fi.intel.com>
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <101ca1ac-c3d3-6685-e21b-4c519346b67f@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 5 Mar 2020 17:05:47 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200304161827.GQ2540@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 04/03/2020 16:18, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:07:29PM +0000, Nicholas Johnson wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 12:33:10PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 03:43:29PM +0000, Nicholas Johnson wrote:
>>>> This reverts commit 03cd45d2e219301880cabc357e3cf478a500080f.
>>>>
>>>> Since NVMEM subsystem gained support for write-only instances, this
>>>> workaround is no longer required, so drop it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@outlook.com.au>
>>>
>>> Assuming this goes through The NVMem tree:
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> If that's not the case, please let me know. I can also take them through
>>> the Thunderbolt tree.
>> I do not know how this would normally work - I have not experienced much
>> cross-subsystem work. Perhaps it should be taken through your tree. If
>> it goes through your tree and not part of this series, perhaps it does
>> not make sense for it to be authored by me, either. It's just a revert;
>> it does not take a lot of effort or doing something original.
> 
> Your authorship is fine.
> 
> Since this patch depends on the first one, it should go together with
> that one either to NVMem tree or Thunderbolt tree. Either is fine by me
> but if I take them then I need an ack from Srinivas.
> 

I applied 2/3 patch which should show up in next 5.7-rc1 release, with 
that in place you can revert this patch. Please take this patch via 
respective tree, it does not make much sense for me to apply this as its 
not going to break any build.


--srini