linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] usb gadget: don't save bind callback in struct usb

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]

Date:	Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:45:46 +0200
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
Cc:	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] usb gadget: don't save bind callback in struct
	usb_configuration

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 11:05:47AM +0200, Michał Nazarewicz wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:27:46 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>
>> The bind function is only called at init time so there is no need to
>> save a pointer to it in the driver struct.
>
> This is not entirely true.  How about such wording:
>
>   The bind function is often called only at init time so there is no neet
>   to save a pointer to it in the configuration structure.
OK.

> Also note, that if you are fixing composite gadgets as well, there's also
> usb_composite_driver structure and accompanying usb_composite_register()
> function.
This is ortogonal to my two patches, right?  Will look into it later.

Thanks
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/