linux-kernel - Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework

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:	Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:25:10 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	"eric miao" <eric.y.miao@...il.com>
Cc:	"Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Felipe Balbi" <felipebalbi@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	"Bill Gatliff" <bgat@...lgatliff.com>,
	"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
	"Andrew Victor" <andrew@...people.com>,
	"Tony Lindgren" <tony@...mide.com>,
	"Jean Delvare" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	"Kevin Hilman" <khilman@...sta.com>,
	"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	"Ben Dooks" <ben@...nity.fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework

On Tuesday 13 November 2007, eric miao wrote:
> 
> Here comes a bunch of patches to illustrate my idea, some are not related to
> the point I mentioned, and they are not mature for now :-)
> 
> Subject: [PATCH 1/5] add gpio_is_onchip() for commonly used gpio range checking

I'll send substantive comments later, but meanwhile note
that the *CURRENT* version was posted last Friday:

  http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119463810905330&w=2
  http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119463811005344&w=2
  http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119463811105352&w=2

Plus the appended tweak.  It's more useful to send patches
against current code, so applying them doesn't provide a
small avalanche of rejects.  :)

With respect to this patch adding gpio_is_onchip(), I
don't see a point.  The "gpio >= chip->base" check
is basically "are the data structures corrupted?" and
so it should only be done if "extra_checks" is defined.
(And IMO, not then ...)  And combining the other two tests
that way doesn't make anything more clear to me.  That's
somewhat of a style issue, I guess, unless you're like
me and don't much trust GCC to avoid extra instructions.

- Dave

-
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/