linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]I2C device

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100323172143.6b078b2e@hyperion.delvare>
Date:	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:21:43 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Jean-Michel Hautbois <jhautbois@...il.com>
Cc:	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]I2C device - release cleanup

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:02:41 +0000, jhautbois@...il.com wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> < snip >
> > Did you test your patch? I am very skeptical that calling
> 
> > single_release() out of the blue is the right thing to do. My instinct
> 
> > tells me that single_release() is only meant for callers of
> 
> > single_open().
> 
> Well, using this call works fine with my hardware.
> I would say, as before :).
> Looking at the source code of single_release, this is very similar to what  
> is done today.
> 
> But yes, it would also be interesting to use single_open in the open()  
> syscall.
> I think this would be nicer to use only single_*() functions.
> 
> Maybe is it interesting to submit a patch that does a cleanup for all the  
> i2c-dev file ? And not only the release function ?

Yes, that would be better. If you do that, please make sure to run your
patch through scripts/checkpatch.pl before sending it.

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/