linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] usb: mux: add common code for Intel dual role port mux

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:	Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:07:19 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
Cc:	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
	Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] usb: mux: add common code for Intel dual role
 port mux

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:19:04PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > What happened to getting internal help in designing this api?  This
> > shouldn't be my job :)
> 
> I looked at this Baolu but, at least to me, it's unclear what you're
> hinting here. Sure, the API is a bit odd in that we register a mux and
> unregister a device (that has been fixed), but is there anything else ?

I don't remember anymore, that was a few thousand emails ago...

But the suggestion about using devm_* shows that the original author has
very little understanding about how the driver model works at all, which
doesn't give me much hope at the moment...

greg k-h