linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/06] input/rmi4: Public header and documentation

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, 23 Oct 2012 16:19:27 -0700
From:	Christopher Heiny <cheiny@...aptics.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	Allie Xiong <axiong@...aptics.com>,
	Vivian Ly <vly@...aptics.com>,
	Daniel Rosenberg <daniel.rosenberg@...aptics.com>,
	Joerie de Gram <j.de.gram@...il.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Naveen Kumar Gaddipati <naveen.gaddipati@...ricsson.com>,
	Alexandra Chin <alexandra.chin@...synaptics.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/06] input/rmi4: Public header and documentation

On 10/15/2012 11:26 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 05:32:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny <Cheiny@...aptics.com> wrote:
>
>>> In previous patch submissions, we always used these warning functions.
>>> But in the feedback on those patches, we were asked to just make
>>> sysfs show/store NULL if the attribute is write/read only.  However,
>>> during their development process, our customers want to see the
>>> warnings if the attributes are accessed incorrectly.  So we made
>>> these warnings a debug option.
>
>> Basically my stance is that you should not lower yourself to the
>> level of others not getting the point of your technical solution
>> by making unelegant compromises, what
>> you should do is to bring them up to your level so they
>> understand that your solution is elegant.
>
> It seems like what you really want to do is add a debug feature to sysfs
> which will optionally complain loudly at bad accesses; obviously it's
> not something that should be there all the time as running then handling
> an error is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.  As with the /CS
> handling it'd mean it was handled at an appropriate level and could be
> reused elsewhere (it might also help make it clear to your customers why
> this is generally bad form).

See my reply to Dmitry of a bit ago.  These are no longer needed, and 
we'll be dropping them.
--
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/