linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/29] memstick: core: add new functions

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, 26 Oct 2010 03:20:58 +0200
From:	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
To:	Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/29] memstick: core: add new functions

On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 07:56 -0700, Alex Dubov wrote:
> --- On Fri, 22/10/10, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH 03/29] memstick: core: add new functions
> > To: "Alex Dubov" <oakad@...oo.com>
> > Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Maxim Levitsky" <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
> > Received: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:53 PM
> > Add a lot of support code that will
> > be used later.
> > 
> 
> You're adding here a lot of temporarily dead code, which, while being
> useful, should be better added together with the actual driver
> functionality.
So what?
What is wrong with that?
Why should I mix things together?


> 
> Besides this, the patch has a lot of unneeded clean-ups which are better
> be set as a separate patch.
What cleanups?
So I added the memstick_power_off and make code use it
If you want even that as separate patch, ok.

And memstick_invalidate_reg_window in memstick_power_on?
Again at any rate it will be invalid there.
(Maybe I should have put that in memstick_power_off actually, will do)

If you want me to put these changes in separate patches, ok, I do it.


> 
> And it doesn't conform to the coding guideline either (4 byte indents,
> instead of tab
What?
I checked the patch with checkpatch.pl. It didn't complain.
I also use 8 byte tabs not 4.
Will look at that, thanks.

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky

--
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/