linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] gpu: drm: i915: intel

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]

Date:	Mon, 8 Dec 2014 14:18:30 -0200
From:	Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@...il.com>
To:	Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@...il.com>,
	Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] gpu: drm: i915: intel_display.c: Remove
 unused function

2014-12-08 12:17 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:32:49AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> 2014-12-08 6:42 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>:
>> > On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 07:29:17PM +0100, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
>> >> Remove the function intel_output_name() that is not used anywhere.
>> >>
>> >> This was partially found by using a static code analysis program called cppcheck.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>
>> >
>> > Queued for 3.20, thanks for the patch.
>>
>> This function was created for the "DDI personality" patches. We merged
>> the function but never ended up merging the patch containing the
>> callers...
>
> Oops, I've thought this is a renmant from the very first days of kms that
> somehow stuck around. That's what I get for once not using git blame
> excessively :( Want me to drop the patch again?

I am not opposed to the removal of an unused function: I understand
the value in the removal, and I also understand the reasons to keep
it. I was just pointing the reason of why we got here: we merged patch
1/2 but ended up never merging patch 2/2 because we always spot some
additional work required and it's a very low priority bug. If this
function is removed, the next person to try to ressurrect the ddi
personality patch can quickly resurrect it or even write a new
implementation from scratch. It is your decision :)


> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch



-- 
Paulo Zanoni
--
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/