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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:25:48 +0200 From: Micha Nelissen <micha@...i.hopto.org> To: Alexandre Bounine <alexandre.bounine@....com> CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] RapidIO: Add switch-specific sysfs initialization callback Alexandre Bounine wrote: > - if (!rdev->rswitch) > - goto out; > - Is it safe? All devices have a switch? > @@ -63,10 +59,11 @@ struct device_attribute rio_dev_attrs[] = { > __ATTR_RO(asm_did), > __ATTR_RO(asm_vid), > __ATTR_RO(asm_rev), > - __ATTR_RO(routes), > __ATTR_NULL, > }; > > +static DEVICE_ATTR(routes, S_IRUGO, routes_show, NULL); > + This seems a separate change from the sw_sysfs? Why make it separate? > */ > struct rio_switch { > @@ -256,6 +257,7 @@ struct rio_switch { > u8 *sw_domain); > int (*em_init) (struct rio_dev *dev); > int (*em_handle) (struct rio_dev *dev, u8 swport); > + int (*sw_sysfs) (struct rio_dev *dev, int create); > struct rio_dev *nextdev[0]; > }; Why not make a sw_sysfs_create and sw_sysfs_remove? Is better for readability. Now you call 'sw_sysfs(dev, 0)' or 'sw_sysfs(dev, 1)'; Micha -- 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