linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill

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: <1302121164.4090.20.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net>
Date:	Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:19:24 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Antonio Ospite <ospite@...denti.unina.it>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, openezx-devel@...ts.openezx.org,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
	Guiming Zhuo <gmzhuo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: Regulator consumer driver for rfkill

On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:17 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:15 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:10 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 14:38 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > The syntax may seem strange,
> > > 
> > > It does!
> > > 
> > > > but basically it just says "don't let me by y if RFKILL is m"
> > > 
> > > ... but, besides that, I can be any value. So in effect it's shorthand
> > > for
> > > 	depends on RFKILL=y || RFKILL=m && m || RFKILL=n
> > > 
> > > (which actually looks equally strange). Is that correct?
> > 
> > I don't think it is, I believe that an expression like "RFKILL=y" has a
> > bool type, and a tristate type value that depends on a bool type can
> > still take the value m.
> 
> Err, which is of course perfectly fine since if RFKILL is built in this
> can be any value, and in the RFKILL=m case you force it to m by making
> it depend on m directly. So yes, you're right.

Whoops ... sorry about the talking to self ...

I still think the original is easier to understand. After all, just
	depends on RFKILL
is trivial to understand even with tristates. And knowing that RFKILL
will provide no-op inlines when it is unconfigured, you add
	depends on !RFKILL
for that case.

johannes

--
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/