linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mfd: cros_ec: Sync to the latest cros_ec

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:43:51 +0200
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Bill Richardson <wfrichar@...omium.org>,
	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
	Dylan Reid <dgreid@...omium.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mfd: cros_ec: Sync to the latest
 cros_ec_commands.h from EC sources

On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 10:20 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 02:53 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > So, in summary, while we're apparently only discussing a single comment,
> > I would appreciate it if it could be reworded, preferably by dropping
> > that the CONFIG_ prefix. But other people might care very little, as
> > they don't share this particular pet peeve.
> 
> Can't your tool maintain a whitelist or ignore list?

Sure it can. But I do think I should try to fix the (in my view, at
least) problems I find before adding stuff to a whitelist or (whatever).

> There are many
> cases where the kernel can pull in headers/data from other projects
> (Firmware interfaces to an arbitrarily large set of HW, Device trees,
> IO/network protocools, perhaps more). It feels quite unreasonable for
> the kernel to decide that it exclusively owns the CONFIG_* namespace
> even in comments, and that every other project it interacts with must
> not use that namespace.

As I said, this is more my peeve. Then again, referring to a macro from
some other project is likely to confuse people.


Paul Bolle

--
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/