linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/13] drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c: use macros for i2c

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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1212181335360.1993@hadrien>
Date:	Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:36:40 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
cc:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
	Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	walter harms <wharms@....de>, ben-linux@...ff.org,
	w.sang@...gutronix.de, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, shubhrajyoti@...com,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c: use macros for 
 i2c_msg initialization



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, Jean Delvare wrote:

> Hi Julia,
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:45:43 +0200 (CEST), Julia Lawall wrote:
> > I found 6 cases where there are more than 2 messages in the array.  I
> > didn't check how many cases where there are two messages but there is
> > something other than one read and one write.
> >
> > Perhaps a reasonable option would be to use
> >
> > I2C_MSG_READ
> > I2C_MSG_WRITE
> > I2C_MSG_READ_OP
> > I2C_MSG_WRITE_OP
> >
> > The last two are for the few cases where more flags are specified.  As
> > compared to the original proposal of I2C_MSG_OP, these keep the READ or
> > WRITE idea in the macro name.  The additional argument to the OP macros
> > would be or'd with the read or write (nothing to do in this case) flags as
> > appropriate.
> >
> > Mauro proposed INIT_I2C_READ_SUBADDR for the very common case where a
> > message array has one read and one write.  I think that putting one
> > I2C_MSG_READ and one I2C_MSG_WRITE in this case is readable enough, and
> > avoids the need to do something special for the cases that don't match the
> > expectations of INIT_I2C_READ_SUBADDR.
> >
> > I propose not to do anything for the moment either for sizes or for
> > message or buffer arrays that contain only one element.
>
> Please note that I resigned from my position of i2c subsystem
> maintainer, so I will not handle this. If you think this is important,
> you'll have to resubmit and Wolfram will decide what he wants to do
> about it.

OK, I had the impression that the conclusion was that the danger was
greater than the benefit.  If there is interest in it, since I think it
does make the code more readable, I can pick it up again.

julia
--
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/