linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi: update win8 OSI blacklist

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:01:34 -0500
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: update win8 OSI blacklist

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 07:50:18PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
>> > I don't get the final
>> > say in whether or not this patch gets merged, but there's a decent
>> > chance that I'm going to be the one who has to remove the entries again
>> > once the backlight mess is fixed up. My life would be significantly
>> > easier if the entries are unambiguously identified in such a way that I
>> > can remove them without having to dig through git history to figure out
>> > where each came from.
>>
>> And a *single* comment on top of this group entries achieves that just
>> fine. You haven't provided a single argument as to why that wouldn't
>> be the case.
>
> No, it demonstrably doesn't. The comments that do exist refer to only a
> subset of the entries underneath them.

That's not true.

/*
* BIOS invocation of _OSI(Linux) is almost always a BIOS bug.
* Linux ignores it, except for the machines enumerated below.
*/

> Having a per-entry comment is significantly clearer.

That is your opinion, it's not a demonstrable fact.

And just to be clear, you are saying that in the following code, you
have no idea which statements correspond to which sections. Am I
correct?

/* section 1 */

a();
b();
c();

/* section 2 */

d();
e();

/* section 3 */

f();

And once again, the problem with the **current** format of the list is
orthogonal to this patch.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/