> -----Original Message----- > From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > Simon Horman > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 9:28 AM > To: Tantilov, Emil S <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Nguyen, > Anthony L <[email protected]>; Loktionov, Aleksandr > <[email protected]>; Kitszel, Przemyslaw > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Olech, Milena > <[email protected]>; Keller, Jacob E <[email protected]>; Ilichev, > Konstantin <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net] idpf: fix read_dev_clk_lock > spinlock init in idpf_ptp_init() > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 03:00:22PM -0700, Tantilov, Emil S wrote: > > > > > > On 4/7/2026 9:02 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > > From: 'Simon Horman' <[email protected]> > > > > > > This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this > > > email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. > > > Full review at: https://sashiko.dev > > > > > > Simon says: I don't agree with the regression characterisation made > > > by the AI review - I think this patch is good. But I do think the > > > issues flagged by the AI review warrant investigation. > > > > The point of the change is to resolve the use of uninitialized > > spinlock. The questions below appear to be generated around that code, > > which would be out of scope for this patch, but I will address them anyway > ... > > Right, I agree with that general statement on the review: it muddles up > potential problems in nearby code, with problems introduced by your patch > (none seen). > > I do thank you for analysing the problems raised. And I'll leave it up to you > to > provide follow-up patches as you see fit. > > For this patch, I think we are good. > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Samuel Salin <[email protected]>
