From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752571AbeDJLmA (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:42:00 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:22532 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752172AbeDJLl7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:41:59 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,431,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="219225770" Message-ID: <1523360515.21176.434.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/9] vsprintf: Consolidate handling of unknown pointer specifiers From: Andy Shevchenko To: Petr Mladek Cc: Linus Torvalds , Rasmus Villemoes , "Tobin C . Harding" , Joe Perches , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Sergey Senozhatsky , Steven Rostedt , Sergey Senozhatsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:41:55 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20180409135028.ymyvsqxup7zm5vgc@pathway.suse.cz> References: <20180404085843.16050-1-pmladek@suse.com> <20180404085843.16050-5-pmladek@suse.com> <1523111200.21176.416.camel@linux.intel.com> <20180409135028.ymyvsqxup7zm5vgc@pathway.suse.cz> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.5-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 15:50 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Sat 2018-04-07 17:26:40, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > This change collides with my patch series. Can you elaborate what > > your > > thoughts are about my patches? Are you going incorporate them to > > your > > series? Should I send them independently? > > Good question. I think that the best solution will be that I go > over your patchset and just add all valid ones into printk.git > for-4.18. I think about 1-7 and 9 that can go as is before your changes. And patch 8 postpone > Then I will base v5 of this patchset on top of it. I'm going for vacation tomorrow. Can you just take them into your series or apply to your tree? > I should have done this earlier. But I did not expect that long > way for the access-check stuff. We originally planned to > do the access check first, see > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1520000254.10722.389.camel@linux.intel.com Yeah, I didn't consider that your one patch became a series... > But the access check patchset still need some love, so it makes > sense to switch the order. I agree. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy