| 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: <20091118160908.GD20887@elf.ucw.cz> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:09:08 +0100 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> Cc: Kuninori Morimoto <morimoto.kuninori@...esas.com>, Magnus Damm <damm@...nsource.se>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Null suspend/resume functions On Tue 2009-11-17 12:41:25, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:52:36PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > I believe that having few nop functions around the tree should not be > > huge problem. If it is, you can introduce one shared top function into > > the core... > > The problem I have with that is that for most APIs noop functions are a > big fat warning sign that something is going wrong and the API is being > abused. This then creates noise and code review problems in the driver > code since you've got something that normally suggests a problem. That still sounds like poor reason to add tests to core. But return 0 function for that purpose should be ok (and should make code easy to review, too). -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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