linux-kernel - Re: Patch for thinkpad-acpi.c

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]

Date:	Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:19 +0200
From:	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:	Bruce <bruce.ma@...onical.com>
Cc:	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
	ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <ibm-acpi@....eng.br>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Patch for thinkpad-acpi.c

Bruce <bruce.ma@...onical.com> writes:

> +struct blacklist lenovo_blacklist[] = {
> +  {
> +    .model_s = "Lenovo LM490s",
> +    .nummodel_s = "814YG01",
> +  },

The driver already has a list of LED support per model in the 

  static const struct tpacpi_quirk led_useful_qtable[] __initconst = {}

array.   Why do you duplicate this with lots of new model checking code
instead of just using the code that's already there?

>  static void led_exit(void)
>  {
> +        if (no_led == 1 ) {

The driver already has provisions for signalling that LEDs are
unsupported through the 'led_supported' variable.  Why do you add
another variable, and duplicate testing in every access function?

But I don't think this part is needed at all, as long as you set up the
proper LED map in led_useful_qtable.

Bjørn
--
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/