linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] STM trace event: Adding generic buffer interface driver

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:	Sat, 06 Jun 2015 14:27:14 +0200
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
	Kaixu Xia <kaixu.xia@...aro.org>,
	Serge Broslavsky <serge.broslavsky@...aro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...aro.org>,
	alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] STM trace event: Adding generic buffer
 interface driver

On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 13:37 +0800, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
> --- a/drivers/stm/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/stm/Kconfig

> +config STM_TRACE_EVENT
> +       tristate "Redirect/copy the output from kernel trace event to
> STM engine"
> +       depends on STM
> +       help
> +         This option can be used to redirect or copy the output from
> kernel trace
> +         event to STM engine. Enabling this option will introduce a slight
> +         timing effect.
> +
> +         If you want to send kernel trace event messages over STM devices,
> +         say Y.

It seems your mailer (or some mailserver) mangled this part.

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/stm/stm_trace_event.c

> +static int stm_trace_event_init(void)
> +{
> +       return stm_source_register_device(NULL, &stm_trace_event_data);
> +}

Is there are reason not to mark this __init?

> +static void stm_trace_event_exit(void)
> +{
> +       stm_source_unregister_device(&stm_trace_event_data);
> +}

Ditto, but here it's __exit, of course.

> +module_init(stm_trace_event_init);
> +module_exit(stm_trace_event_exit);

(These are not rhetorical questions. I actually wonder whether there a
reasons not to mark module_init() and module_exit() functions with
__init and __exit.)


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/