linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clockevents: Add (missing) default case for switch blocks

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, 23 Feb 2015 17:37:06 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Linaro Networking <linaro-networking@...aro.org>,
	Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>,
	Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
	Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clockevents: Add (missing) default case for switch blocks


* Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:

> On 20 February 2015 at 19:34, Ingo Molnar 
> <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> >> Unused. Initially all clockevent devices are supposed 
> >> to be in this mode but later if another device 
> >> replaces an existing one, the existing one is put into 
> >> this mode.
> >
> > I'd suggest to rename it to MODE_INIT - at first glance 
> > it gave me the impression that it's some sort of API 
> > placeholder - i.e. an unused flag or so.
> 
> Sorry, if I wasn't able to clarify this earlier. The 
> impression you got at first glance is correct. And it 
> should be UNUSED only instead of INIT. Its not about if 
> the the device is initialized or not, but if it is used 
> or not. And that's why there is no callback for this in 
> the new per-mode callbacks.

Ok, could we rename it to something like DETACHED?

'UNUSED' really gives me the wrong impression - it's what 
we do for unused fields, unused ABI enumertion constants, 
etc.

> > Also, I'd suggest to rename all 'modes' to true state 
> > machine naming: STATE_INITIALIZED, STATE_SHUT_DOWN, 
> > STATE_PERIODIC, STATE_RESUMED, etc.: if these are enums 
> > for
> 
> I thought so initially and it looked like the diff will 
> be huge as all the variables for the enum, i.e. 'mode', 
> need to be renamed to 'state'..
> 
> But, if you are okay with it then I would be happy to do 
> that..

Well, how does the diffstat look like?

But if the conversion was scripted (i.e. is relatively 
secure from typos) then that's still fine IMO. Peter?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/