linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] HID and USB HID update for 2.6.21-rc2

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702281922110.4255@jikos.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:29:53 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] HID and USB HID update for 2.6.21-rc2

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > But OK, I will leave it in there.
> No. You need to realize just WHY it was wrong. Not just an "But OK".

Yep, I totally agree that with the usbhid.h thing I really had a bad day, 
it was braindamage without excuse, sorry.

I still think that creating a separate header file solely for purpose of 
having the large hid blacklist and all related defines separate from the 
actual implementation is needed. The pages and pages of blacklist just 
pollute the hid-core.c needlessly. 

Of course hid-core.c must be the only user of this header. But seems like 
this solution oposes your taste ("The point of a header file is to 
*declare* things, not to have big data structures in"), so I would 
probably not go this way.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
-
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/