linux-kernel - Re: [PWM v6 1/3] PWM: Implement a generic PWM framework

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:	Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:05:27 -0600
From:	Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
To:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PWM v6 1/3] PWM: Implement a generic PWM framework

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de> wrote:

>
>> +     if (IS_ERR(p->dev)) {
>> +             ret = PTR_ERR(p->dev);
>> +             goto err_device_create;
>> +     }
> I think it would be better to embedd the device struct directly into the
> pwm_device struct. You could also remove the data field of the pwm_device
> struct and use dev_{get,set}_drvdata for pwm_{get,set}_drvdata.

In theory I agree with you, but it would take away my ability to do
things like device_create_vargs() and thereby make my code a bit more
complicated and error prone.  Do you think the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages?


b.g.
-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@...lgatliff.com
--
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/