From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D22DC32754 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:43:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539C0208E4 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:43:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="UfFD539j" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730384AbfGaQnt (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:43:49 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:42780 "EHLO mail-pf1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730341AbfGaQnj (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:43:39 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id q10so32169391pff.9; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:43:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dUNFdN6DiR2HTjlajr62FaV7YbxRxOVNxB6akEc8IzE=; b=UfFD539jtnd9rBd5++QIiFVmMCS0rGi6TFi1zWK5nZuTAnnvEwRNOj7s9+86h4FbBj QhAY/KT2h68/eDOKtL4NlhZlWqxt95qCGTS0weQB+7akD6ForW1gKMtrLSS6vTwNSH4s rn6vT2sCVaxqsmP2ofzGAOeDBHxDN+EpU1s7OUSArTAkgUPE6FP76WbBd/ifFMSwC4wE 1OaSCXm2h2nv613AZYGYSRRKHarNOtJUG9z08d+v+3zf0osz+jexaFzocMRoMy5e/mkf 6qG6GDoOmZhDgHuVD0Wwm7ku1CLBmxetAFtD4qToemQjt6SZkv/OXnk/FGRNSMJRKgg4 iguA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=dUNFdN6DiR2HTjlajr62FaV7YbxRxOVNxB6akEc8IzE=; b=SwYQMgQaewh5F4EsvLPP8KkJ4ArW3XICRHRBArGxl59u+e7+Q13NlIIq8fGIyr5ozP goOg9KI2T7B1WjPQUA/MMF3FqvsEaC69bkcTBm+6yWzEuamn8Rd9jr5LxPML2zSDU+ej X5HD+X2Z+OZeAbOnomjtBe+GDsY3NIDRff76WGz85CZXt4gjsP/NzrmW6RolUakFAUiY 0/eruJ20njA/bVjNU7L1F99Ub9ZhRP55+8x9AD+8vAZ5Dcjsp1FzApW9veADZM3bMi9+ p6B0L8bStrNYb9l9LOrTSpoPHncMkb0yf00iEZyZfMxGNqykGzzR5AN4S9UzU7lucMvj BCNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTXlPYE7/KrH9L5THu0H2R08iBbD+yrPsenncezYi0xRrxvIsL YJWLGp1j5xSbXjS10sz4X2eykwAi X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz7MUmHiRgps8HbXXSoRlnaZ02BToAVxnsFBRbRnKGvRA4JqpH/FlawNwLG0rijMXSUo+R4aQ== X-Received: by 2002:a62:be0c:: with SMTP id l12mr48704886pff.224.1564591418785; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 23sm72981420pfn.176.2019.07.31.09.43.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:43:37 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Mark Balantzyan Cc: wim@linux-watchdog.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Andrianov Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog:alim1535_wdt: Fix data race in ali_settimer() concerning ali_timeout_bits variable. Message-ID: <20190731164337.GA13646@roeck-us.net> References: <20190718155238.3066-1-mbalant3@gmail.com> <20190718163458.GA18125@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark, On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Mark Balantzyan wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > If it's not too much too ask, I also propose to rewrite alim1535_wdt to use > the watchdog subsystem as I believe we are making progress toward the > similar end in pc87413_wdt, as my evaluation ends in some weeks. > Please, no. We still have ways to go with that one driver, and we'll be stuck with a patch which I can't accept because of lack of testing. I (and you) really need to talk to your evaluators why they ask you to make those changes. This is highly inappropriate. The Linux kernel is not an feasible target for such an evaluation. This is setting you up for failure, and it is a waste of both your and my time. Are you really working for or on belalf of the Linux Foundation ? They should know better. And if Google is involved, I am embarassed for my employer. If they really want people to do work like this, they should also provide reviewers and coaching staff. They should most definitely not expect kernel maintainers to do it for them. Thanks, Guenter