linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] iommu/amd: Add basic debugfs infrastructure for AMD IOMMU

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:   Thu, 19 Apr 2018 01:52:02 +0000
From:   "Yang, Shunyong" <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>
To:     "sohil.mehta@...el.com" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
        "gary.hook@....com" <gary.hook@....com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "ghook@....com" <ghook@....com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] iommu/amd: Add basic debugfs infrastructure for
 AMD IOMMU

Hi, Gary,

On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 16:51 -0400, Hook, Gary wrote:
> On 4/18/2018 4:16 PM, Mehta, Sohil wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 08:31 +0000, Yang, Shunyong wrote:
> > > 
> > > Maybe the original design is to call debugfs_initialized() before
> > > calling debugfs_create_xxx()?
> > I am unaware of the original design. Someone else would probably
> > have
> > more context. However, looking at other places in the kernel where
> > debugfs_create_xx() is used, the common convention seems to be to
> > avoid
> > calling debugfs_initialized().
> > 
> >   Sohil
> > 
> debugfs_initialized() was introduced in commit c0f92ba99 back in 
> 2.6.30-rc1. It was intended as a helper, not as a gatekeeper, which
> is 
> why one doesn't see it used. Given that my use in this proposed patch
> is 
> straightforward, I'm not seeing the need here. I had just seen some 
> other code that used it, and copied the model.
> 
> Unless someone comes along to say, yes, use it, I'll not.
> 

I agree with you and Sohil on removing the unnecessary function
calling.

Thanks.
Shunyong.


> Gary