linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Annotate gpio-configuration with __must

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110104230508.GA18363@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Wed, 5 Jan 2011 00:05:08 +0100
From:	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Annotate gpio-configuration with __must_check


> > should fail if it cannot be requested. Or not. Things get worse for
> > architectures I never used before. This is why I think it is really better to
> > let people do the fixups who have/understand the hardware in question.
> > Otherwise the fixups could indeed be more harmful than helpful.
> 
> Sure, they could be more harmful, but at least try.  Make the patches
> up, submit them to the maintainers, and if they are wrong, they will be
> the best to fix it up properly.

Well, I could generalize all cases and always issue a WARN() if the request
fails. But this would just move a compile-time warning into a runtime warning.
Also, I have my doubts that even the arch/mach-maintainers know all the boards
and their peculiarities. There are thousands of them.

Kind regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)