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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <13293a67c19b0c18d2c99386dcf159ea.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org>
Date:	Thu, 21 May 2015 10:09:34 -0000
From:	ygardi@...eaurora.org
To:	"Paul Bolle" <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	"Yaniv Gardi" <ygardi@...eaurora.org>,
	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.
>

we haven't uploaded yet the patch that binds qcom vops to the driver, but
we will soon.

>
> Paul Bolle
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>


--
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/