linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: iproc: Add recovery mechanism in error case

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: <00a4c0fe-962c-3e76-fb53-1c5eadb95af9@broadcom.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:32:53 -0800
From:	Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
To:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
Cc:	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
	Icarus Chau <ichau@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] i2c: iproc: Add recovery mechanism in error case



On 2/12/2016 11:31 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> +static int bcm_iproc_i2c_init(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c);
>> +static void bcm_iproc_i2c_enable_disable(struct bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c,
>> +					 bool enable);
>
> Can't we move these functions instead of having the extra declarations?
>

I had the same opinion during our internal review, :)

I'll do that in the next revision of this patch set.

Thanks,

Ray