| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200901051545.04912.david-b@pacbell.net> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:45:04 -0800 From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> To: Mark Brown <broonie@...ena.org.uk> Cc: lrg@...mlogic.co.uk, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc7] regulator: catch some registration errors On Tuesday 02 December 2008, Mark Brown wrote: > > Also make sure the consumer device is provided. It's nonsensical > > to omit these, and not a documented part of the interface. Since > > no code in mainline does such stuff, this is just anti-oops medicine. > > ...we do still need to cater for cpufreq and other struct deviceless > consumers. If you can guarantee that no such consumers will ever exist > then great but we're not there yet. Just for the record: my feeling is that since no such drivers currently use the regulator framework, it's wrong to design-in breakage to support them. When someone writes a cpufreq driver that uses the regulator framework, they can arrange to provide the relevant "struct device *" to make that work neatly. Meanwhile, I still think the regulator framework should be using driver model messages. Since the only reason not to use them is to support those non-existent drivers. - Dave p.s. Glad to see at least part of this patch get merged, even if related diagnostics are lacking. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists