linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] usb: gadget: move find

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1508051028470.1713-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Wed, 5 Aug 2015 10:30:54 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Robert Baldyga <r.baldyga@...sung.com>
cc:	balbi@...com, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] usb: gadget: move find_ep() from epautoconf to
 gadget.h

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Robert Baldyga wrote:

> Move find_ep() function to gadget.h, rename it to gadget_find_ep_by_name()
> and make it static inline. It can be used in UDC drivers, especially in
> 'match_ep' callback after moving chip-specific endpoint matching logic from
> epautoconf to UDC drivers.

> --- a/include/linux/usb/gadget.h
> +++ b/include/linux/usb/gadget.h
> @@ -639,6 +639,24 @@ static inline struct usb_gadget *dev_to_usb_gadget(struct device *dev)
>  #define gadget_for_each_ep(tmp, gadget) \
>  	list_for_each_entry(tmp, &(gadget)->ep_list, ep_list)
>  
> +/**
> + * gadget_find_ep_by_name - returns ep whose name is the same as sting passed
> + *	in second parameter or NULL if searched endpoint not found
> + * @g: controller to check for quirk
> + * @name: name of searched endpoint
> + */
> +static inline struct usb_ep *
> +gadget_find_ep_by_name(struct usb_gadget *g, const char *name)
> +{
> +	struct usb_ep *ep;
> +
> +	gadget_for_each_ep(ep, g) {
> +		if (!strcmp(ep->name, name))
> +			return ep;
> +	}
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}

Minor point: Is this function short enough to be worth inlining?  My 
general feeling has been that anything containing a nontrivial loop 
probably shouldn't be inlined, but I could be wrong.

Alan Stern

--
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/