Re: [PATCH v3] eeprom: at24: fix memory corruption race condition

Re: [PATCH v3] eeprom: at24: fix memory corruption race condition

[Markus Elfring]

> If the eeprom is not accessible, an nvmem device will be registered, the
> read will fail, and the device will be torn down.
…

Can it be nicer to present the introduction for failure conditions as an enumeration?


> Move the failure point before registering the nvmem device.
…

I would interpret the diff data more in the way that a devm_nvmem_register() call
should be performed a bit later in the implementation of the function “at24_probe”.
How do you think about to mention the affected function also in the summary phrase?


> ---
…

Please add a version description for your change approach.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.9-rc4#n713

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v3] eeprom: at24: fix memory corruption race condition

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 11:11:05AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > If the eeprom is not accessible, an nvmem device will be registered, the
> > read will fail, and the device will be torn down.
> …
> 
> Can it be nicer to present the introduction for failure conditions as an enumeration?
> 
> 
> > Move the failure point before registering the nvmem device.
> …
> 
> I would interpret the diff data more in the way that a devm_nvmem_register() call
> should be performed a bit later in the implementation of the function “at24_probe”.
> How do you think about to mention the affected function also in the summary phrase?
> 

Hi,

This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list.  I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore.  Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.

Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all.  The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback.  Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot

Re: [PATCH v3] eeprom: at24: fix memory corruption race condition

[Markus Elfring]

How do you think about to increase the version number for your attempt in the patch subject?

See also previous contribution:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240419191200.219548-1-dtokazaki@google.com/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/4/19/946


> If the eeprom is not accessible, an nvmem device will be registered, the
> read will fail, and the device will be torn down.
…

Please present the introduction for failure conditions as an enumeration.


> Move the failure point before registering the nvmem device.
…

I would interpret the diff data more in the way that a devm_nvmem_register() call
should be performed a bit later in the implementation of the function “at24_probe”.
How do you think about to mention the affected function also in the summary phrase?


> Changed sha length to 12 in description

A specification was adjusted for a tag.
Please add a version identifier here.
Will version descriptions be extended another bit?


> ---

I suggest to use blank line instead of a duplicate marker line.

Regards,
Markus