linux-kernel - Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver

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: <20070517133236.GA16009@kroah.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2007 06:32:36 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Ben Collins <ben.collins@...ntu.com>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Ganesh Varadarajan <ganesh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] Remove duplicate ID in ipaq driver

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:02:20AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 05:43 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 05:36:48PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:59 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > > >  	/* The first entry is a placeholder for the insmod-specified device */
> > > >  > -	{ USB_DEVICE(0x049F, 0x0003) },
> > > > 
> > > > Is it obvious why this patch is correct?  Especially given the
> > > > comment just before the line you delete, and the code
> > > > 
> > > > 	if (vendor) {
> > > > 		ipaq_id_table[0].idVendor = vendor;
> > > > 		ipaq_id_table[0].idProduct = product;
> > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > in ipaq_init()?
> > > 
> > > My mistake, quick on the patching going through this dupe list.
> > > 
> > > Might I add that this is terrible use of the device table, though.
> > > Clutters userspace, and adds processing to module-init-tools programs.
> > 
> > It's a hold-over from the times when we didn't have the sysfs "add a new
> > id" interface for usb-serial drivers, which only recently was created.
> > 
> > So we just have to live with it, and the infinitesimal speed hit it
> > creates :)
> 
> Any objection to adding it to planned-for-removal and spitting out a
> printk when someone uses the "feature"?

No, it's a module parameter and it's much easier to use for some systems
than the sysfs file way.  It's just not worth breaking userspace APIs
for no good reason.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/