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  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, 27 Oct 2009 10:30:01 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <>
To:	Jean Delvare <>
Cc:	Crane Cai <>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <>,,
	linux-kernel <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] acpi: support IBM SMBus CMI devices

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 06:03:32PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:

> I'm only half please with this. You change the function named, but it
> doesn't follow the calling convention of acpi_dock_match(), which is a
> little confusing.
> Anyway, I will need an ack from the ACPI people before I can pick this
> patch. Or maybe they should even push it upstream themselves.

I am confused.  Looking at that bunch of ifs, acpi_is_video_device returns 1
for a match and 0 for no match.  acpi_bay_match returns 0 for a match and
-ENODEV for no match, which just happens to work with the ACPI_SUCCESS macro.
acpi_dock_match returns ACPI error codes.  Each of the three existing tests has
different return value semantics, so it is not clear to me which one I should

I didn't think it was correct for my probe function to use the ACPI_STATUS
macro unless it returned ACPI error codes... which it does not.  -ENODEV seemed
appropriate for "no device found".

Is it desirable to clean them all up to follow the same convention?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists