linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: unisys: handle major number properly

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: <20150324053608.GA4640@sudip-PC>
Date:	Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:06:08 +0530
From:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Benjamin Romer <benjamin.romer@...sys.com>,
	David Kershner <david.kershner@...sys.com>,
	*S-Par-Maintainer <sparmaintainer@...sys.com>,
	"open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: unisys: handle major number properly

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:04:40PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 08:31:24PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
<snip>
>
> This doesn't apply anymore, due to other changes recently to this
> driver.
>
> But even if it did, I don't think it is correct.  I really don't
> understand what you are trying to do here.  I think you just merged two
> different major numbers togther, which isn't good at all.  But if you
> didn't, then why is this patch doing different things to different files
> (hint, only do one thing per file.)
>
> Also, why does the driver have multiple major numbers?  Isn't a single
> major good enough?  How many does it need?  For what does it use them
> for?

but, according to my understanding the driver is having only one major
number. visorchipset_major is the major number defined in
visorchipset_main.c as a module parameter. The original code in
visorchipset_main.c was creating dev_t from this major number and
calling the function visorchipset_file_init(), which is in file.c
with the dev_t as an argument.

Now visorchipset_file_init(), it is registering that dev_t as a
char driver and  storing it in a static variable so that it can reuse
that dev_t in visorchipset_file_cleanup().

My patch is just passing the major and minor number as argument to
visorchipset_file_init() which is creating that dev_t while registering.
and instead of storing it again as a static variable i am using
Visorchipset_platform_device.dev.devt while calling the cleanup().

now since all are related to only one change so it all came in a single
patch.

is my understanding correct or am i missing something here?

regards
sudip

>
> Totally confused,
>
> greg k-h
--
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/