linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V3.5] leds: trigger: Introduce an USB port trigger

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: <87zio2ypel.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:48:02 +0200
From:   Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
Cc:     Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Chen <hzpeterchen@...il.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>,
        Stephan Linz <linz@...pro.net>,
        Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@...e.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org (open list:DOCUMENTATION),
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list),
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org (open list:LED SUBSYSTEM)
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V3.5] leds: trigger: Introduce an USB port trigger

Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> writes:

> The last big missing thing is Documentation update (this is why I'm
> sending RFC). Greg pointed out we should have some entries in
> Documentation/ABI, but it seems none of triggers have it.

There's a lot missing, but there is at least one exception:
The "inverted" attribute of the  gpio and backlight triggers is
documented as part of Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-led

> Any idea why is that?

Manual enforcement fails from time to time? The requirement was less
strict in the early days of sysfs? Does it matter?

> Do we need to change it? Or is it required for new code only?

The lack of ABI docs is a bug. Don't add new code with known bugs. Old
code should be fixed, but there is no immediate *need* to fix it.


Bjørn