linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] zram: Make gobal variables use unique names

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: <4E6AB0EA.9090505@vflare.org>
Date:	Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:35:54 -0400
From:	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Driver Project <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Noah Watkins <noahwatkins@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] zram: Make gobal variables use unique names

On 09/09/2011 07:10 PM, Greg KH wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 07:01:02PM -0400, Nitin Gupta wrote:
>> Global variables 'num_devices' and 'devices' are too
>> general to be global. This patch switches the name to
>> be "zram_devices".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Noah Watkins <noahwatkins@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
> 
> I've already applied this patch, right?
> 

I just checked another (staging-next) tree which is sync'ed more
recently and yes this patch has been applied.  Since git.kernel.org
seems to be down I couldn't see this change on my working tree.

However, that previous change actually also renamed module parameter
name 'num_devices' to 'zram_num_devices' which does not make much sense
since the boot parameter would now be 'zram.zram_num_devices='.  All
that's needed is to rename that global variable to some less generic
name but the boot/command line parameter name should be retained as
'zram.num_devices=' which is what this new patch does.

So, would it possible for you to back-out that original change and apply
this change instead. Or, should I send a new patch series that "fixes"
that previous change?

Nitin
--
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/