linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs

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:	Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:11:34 +0600
From:	Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype.

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:53:37AM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > If it's really not used then why would marking it inline help out any?
>> > Shouldn't we just delete the function instead?
>> >
>> As far as I can see, its been called recursively and also from
>> sysfs_add_one. Am I missing anything?
>
> If so, then what is the compiler warning that is being generated that
> you are trying to resolve?
>

Yes - its really confusing. Actually, sysfs_pathname is called from
WARN(). So - when #ifndef WARN is false, then we're having that
problem and sysfs_pathname isn't used that time. So, the proposed
patch isn't the correct fix. Maybe, splitting up the WARN message and
calling sysfs_pathname is the correct one. Am I right?




> totally confused,
>
> greg k-h
>
--
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/