linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4,2/5] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPdLdqkDCYS7WsgkofJt78ztGTixQ9P+gVhkJZxteQL-YvwbKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:05:05 -0700
From:	Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@...aro.org>
To:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	"Omar Ramirez Luna (omar.ramirez@...itl.com)" 
	<omar.ramirez@...itl.com>, Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>,
	LeyFoon Tan <lftan.linux@...il.com>,
	Craig McGeachie <slapdau@...oo.com.au>,
	Courtney Cavin <courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Girish K S <ks.giri@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4,2/5] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

On 28 March 2014 20:54, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Markus Mayer <markus.mayer@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> .....
>
>>> +int mbox_send_message(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *mssg)
>>> +{
>>> +     int t;
>>> +
>>> +     if (!chan || !chan->cl)
>>> +             return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> +     t = _add_to_rbuf(chan, mssg);
>>> +     if (t < 0) {
>>> +             pr_err("Try increasing MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN\n");
>>> +             return t;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     _msg_submit(chan);
>>> +
>>> +     if (chan->txdone_method == TXDONE_BY_POLL)
>>> +             poll_txdone((unsigned long)chan->con);
>>
>> Wouldn't it be cleaner to use
>>                 poll_txdone((unsigned long)&chan->con);
>> ?
>>
> Here's how we use it ...
>
> static void poll_txdone(unsigned long data)
> {
>      struct mbox_con *con = (struct mbox_con *)data;
>      .....
> }
>
> To me, unnecessarily passing a pointer to a pointer seems unclean.

You are right. I didn't look closely enough.

Regards,
-Markus
--
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/