linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove "decl_subsys_name" macro and single usage of it.

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: <1173964087.5099.14.camel@pim.off.vrfy.org>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:08:07 +0100
From:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove "decl_subsys_name" macro and single usage of it.

On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 08:52 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Kay Sievers wrote:
> 
> > On 3/1/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >   Remove the macro "decl_subsys_name" which can be used to declare a
> > > sysfs subsystem, along with the single invocation of it in the source
> > > tree, since there appears to be little value in creating a subsystem
> > > whose subsystem name differs from its structure name.  Everyone else
> > > just uses "decl_subsys".
> >
> > Sometimes you want shorter variable names as the created objects in
> > sysfs, because the 80 columns limit of the kernel source makes long
> > variable names pretty inconvenient.
> > And all these decl_* macros, obviously can't create any names that
> > contain '-', which is pretty annoying. There is also a user in the
> > experimental patches in Greg's tree. Please leave it there for now.
> 
> no problem but that patch *was* based on a suggestion by greg in the
> first place.  i'm guessing he just forgot. :-)

A cleanup of the driver-core source is long overdue, that's why we like
everything that goes away here, that isn't really needed. :)

In the end, we should probably just get rid of the whole "struct
subsystem". We can move the lock to the kset and ditch the whole weird
idea of a "subsystem", which is nothing but a collection of ksets, which
the object model can handle without "struct subsystem" just fine.

Thanks,
Kay

-
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/