linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] RapidIO: Add switch-specific sysfs initialization callback

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:	Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:18:11 +0200
From:	Micha Nelissen <micha@...i.hopto.org>
To:	"Bounine, Alexandre" <Alexandre.Bounine@....com>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] RapidIO: Add switch-specific sysfs initialization
 callback

Bounine, Alexandre wrote:
>> Why not make a sw_sysfs_create and sw_sysfs_remove? Is better for
>> readability. Now you call 'sw_sysfs(dev, 0)' or 'sw_sysfs(dev, 1)';
> 
> I just do not want to have an extra member here. Not every switch will
> require own sysfs attributes, but every switch will be presented by a
> data structure. Based on its intended use I do not see any problem here.

It's not problematic, but personally I find function calls that pass 0 
or 1 as an argument hard to read. Likewise for boolean parameters. An 
alternative would be to have defines SW_SYSFS_CREATE etc. It's a minor item.

Micha
--
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/