linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: add regulator_force_disable() definition for !CONFIG

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, 2 Jan 2012 11:40:49 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
Cc:	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Donggeun Kim <dg77.kim@...sung.com>, len.brown@...el.com,
	pavel@....cz, rjw@...k.pl, rdunlap@...otime.net,
	cbouatmailru@...il.com, pali.rohar@...il.com, prakity@...ell.com,
	lars@...afoo.de, kyungmin.park@...sung.com, myungjoo.ham@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: add regulator_force_disable() definition for
 !CONFIG_REGULATOR

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:49:32PM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> regulator_force_disable() was omitted in consumer.h for
> !CONFIG_REGULATOR case.

Applied, thanks.  

> +static inline int regulator_force_disable(struct regulator *regulator)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

I do think this'd be better returning an error - unlike the other stub
functions ignoring the attempt to force disable isn't within the bounds
of normal behaviour and if the consumer is trying to force disable at
all it's probably pretty urgent that the disable actually happens.
--
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/