linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] scsi: ufs-qcom: update configuration option of SCSI_UFS

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: <1432192570.21715.107.camel@x220>
Date:	Thu, 21 May 2015 09:16:10 +0200
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, kishon@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, santoshsy@...il.com,
	linux-scsi-owner@...r.kernel.org, subhashj@...eaurora.org,
	gbroner@...eaurora.org, dovl@...eaurora.org,
	Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...n.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] scsi: ufs-qcom: update configuration option of
 SCSI_UFS_QCOM component

On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 10:22 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> By the way, as far as I can see, this (new) module can only be loaded
> manually (or via scripts). Is that what people want?

This comment wasn't well thought through. So I hand another look at the
code of usf-qcom.

I noticed that the single thing ufs-qcom exports is "struct
ufs_hba_qcom_vops". But that's unused in next-20150520:
    $ git grep -nw ufs_hba_qcom_vops
    drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c:999: * struct ufs_hba_qcom_vops - UFS QCOM specific variant operations
    drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c:1004:static const struct ufs_hba_variant_ops ufs_hba_qcom_vops = {
    drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c:1016:EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufs_hba_qcom_vops);

So it's not used by code outside of ufs-qcom.c. Probably because it
can't actually be used by outside code. It's not mentioned in any public
header and it's even static!

Am I missing something obvious here? Because ufs-qcom currently looks
pointless to me, and I actually see little reason to even have it in the
mainline tree. 


Paul Bolle

--
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/