linux-kernel - Re: [patch 18/18] PNP: convert resource options to single linked list

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:44:00 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Adam Belay <ambx1@....rr.com>,
	Adam M Belay <abelay@....edu>,
	Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Matthieu Castet <castet.matthieu@...e.fr>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 18/18] PNP: convert resource options to single linked list

On Saturday 14 June 2008 04:31:54 am Rene Herman wrote:
> On 05-06-08 00:09, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 
> > ISAPNP, PNPBIOS, and ACPI describe the "possible resource settings" of
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> Acked-by: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
> 
> Only minor comment:
> 
> > +static inline unsigned int pnp_independent_option(void)
> > +{
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> I think this is a somewhat unintuitive name (the function doesn't return 
> an option) and now that the pnp_dependent_option() one has been renamed 
> to pnp_new_dependent_set() even the symmetry doesn't survive.
> 
> pnp_independent_option_flags? pnp_independent_flags? Or better yet, just 
> literal 0? That last one unless you have some as of yet unpublished plan 
> for the abstraction ofcourse but this function seems to obscure more 
> than it helps any at the moment.

Yep, you're absolutely right.  I changed the dependent name at the
last minute and should have done something with independent at the
same time.  I like the literal 0 idea.

> Only trivial:
> 
> > +static int pnp_assign_resources(struct pnp_dev *dev, int set)
> > {
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > -fail:
> > -	pnp_clean_resource_table(dev);
> >  	mutex_unlock(&pnp_res_mutex);
> > -	dbg_pnp_show_resources(dev, "after pnp_assign_resources (failed)");
> > -	return 0;
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		dev_dbg(&dev->dev, "pnp_assign_resources failed (%d)\n", ret);
> > +		pnp_clean_resource_table(dev);
> > +	} else
> > +		dbg_pnp_show_resources(dev, "pnp_assign_resources succeeded");
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> 
> if (ret < 0) would agree with the rest.
> 
> >  int pnp_auto_config_dev(struct pnp_dev *dev)
> >  {
> > -	struct pnp_option *dep;
> > -	int i = 1;
> > +	int i, ret = 0;
> 
> int ret; will do;

Thanks, I'll fold those in, too.

Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/