linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] usbhid: HID device simple driver interface

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]

Message-ID: <44C81444.9090706@ccoss.com.cn>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:17:56 +0800
From:	liyu <liyu@...ss.com.cn>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] usbhid: HID device simple driver interface

    Well, That change from macro to inline function is more bettter idea.

    Regarding the Documentation/newwhere, I also have such plan to
complete it, but need some time.
We will have it.

    Regarding list_* marco, I really apologize, they wrote when I
implemented matched_lock/simple_lock
as spin lock. As I found this design have some restrictions, I replace
spin lock with semaphore, but leave these macro in header. I will clear
them.

    For Patch splitting, I can not find more words in Documentation/,
however, It seem Arnd are right.
The next version of this patch will join core patch and header patch.

    Last, I had tried again and again, but mail client still replace TAB
with spaces, I think I should replace it with another.
   
    Thanks a lot.

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 18:10, Josef Sipek wrote:
>   
>> You should use (hid) instead of hid. Because of how the pre-processor works.
>>
>>     
>
> Or, even better, use an inline function instead of a macro whereever
> possible.
>
> One more thing, the description for patch 1 can probably be refined
> a bit more and put into Documentation/somewhere as a new file.
>
> Regarding the split of the patch, it's usually a bad idea to 
> put the header file into a separate patch from its users.
> E.g. if someone during debugging tries to revert patch 2 but not
> patch 1, he ends up with a broken build.
>
> 	Arnd <><
> -
> 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/
>
>
>   

-
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/