linux-kernel - Re: Can we remove pci_find

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]

Message-ID: <20100112173947.GA7784@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:39:47 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Karsten Keil <isdn@...ux-pingi.de>,
	isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de
Subject: Re: Can we remove pci_find_device() yet?

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 05:42:14PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 2010-01-11 21:01 schrieb Greg KH:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 08:46:50PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >>
> >> Just an idea - as a stopgap measure, couldn't pci_find_device() be made
> >> a private function of the HiSax drivers? That way, the remainder of the
> >> kernel won't be polluted by it anymore, and the PCI_LEGACY config option
> >> can be dropped. Something like this quick and dirty hack:
> > 
> > Close, but if you do this, please name the function
> > hisax_find_pci_device() or something, and change the drivers to use it
> 
> Sorry, but no. That would drag me into the checkpatch.pl swamp,
> a place I know well enough by now to avoid it whenever possible.

I don't understand, why?

> Many of the calls to pci_find_device() have checkpatch problems
> which of course do not go away by just substituting another
> function name, so I would be obliged to restructure all those
> call sites by hand for the sake of "not introducing new code
> with checkpatch problems". BTDT.

No you would not, don't be crazy.  Modfying a single line to rename a
function from one thing to another could never be decreed as a "don't
add bad code".  And if someone says it is, well, you just found someone
who doesn't know what they are doing :)

> So I'll drop that idea. If someone else wants to pick it up,
> feel free to do so.

Please continue with this idea, it's sane, and valid.

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/