linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] USB: gadget: __init and _

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: <w2v8bd0f97a1004190102pd928e442td837c8fcee0541c5@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:02:48 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To:	Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
Cc:	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] USB: gadget: __init and __exit tags removed

2010/4/19 Michał Nazarewicz:
> Are you referring to my previous patch by saying "then they get tweaked
> to support a semi-dynamic state"? Those were just a proposal which was never
> accepted and suggested to remove those tags all together.

i'm referring to the change that started triggering these section
mismatch warnings with 2.6.33.  i dont recall seeing any such issues
with 2.6.28-2.6.32, and probably older as well.

>> sounds like the system is insufficiently flexible to meet the
>> realistic needs of different groups.
>
> Yes, I agree.  That's why in the first version I proposed the __usb_init,
> __usb_exit, etc. tags which could be customized prior to including
> composite related files.
>
> I would still go with that solution but it was considered, let me
> find the exact phrase, "Ick ick ick." :)

seems like __usbgadget_xxx would be better naming, but i'm not
interested in fighting to get the idea in general accepted

> What's more, I don't see any other (that is cleaner) solution which
> would allow flexibility so it seems what we can either choose
> a non-flexible solution proposed by this patch or an ugly solution
> proposed by my previous patch.

i dont have a problem with your current patch (since there are still
seciton mismatch warnings floating about that i imagine this is going
to fix), just with the general situation
-mike
--
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/