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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:07:28 +0000 From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> To: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch> Cc: swarren@...dotorg.org, thierry.reding@...il.com, dev@...xeye.de, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org, kai.poggensee@...onic-design.de, sameo@...ux.intel.com, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mfd: tps6586x: add version detection On Wed, 04 Dec 2013, Stefan Agner wrote: > Am 2013-12-04 09:10, schrieb Lee Jones: > >> +int tps6586x_get_version(struct device *dev) > >> +{ > >> + struct tps6586x *tps6586x = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > >> + > >> + return tps6586x->version; > >> +} > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tps6586x_get_version); > > > > I thought Mark suggested that this routine was converted to a 'static > > inline' and moved into the header? Did you not think this was a good > > idea? > As I pointed out in the comment above, the struct tps6586x is in the C > file, so I would need to move that too. That's why I did not made that > change in the end. What do you think, should I still move (and move the > struct too?) Why would the struct have to be moved if the function is inline? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists