linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] ALSA: hda - use dell_micmute_led_set() instead of dell_app_wmi_led

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: <20161215144628.GB22695@kmp-mobile.hq.kempniu.pl>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:46:28 +0100
From:   Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc:     Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Bob Rodgers <Robert_Rodgers@...l.com>,
        Louis Davis <Louis_Davis@...l.com>,
        Jim Dailey <Jim_Dailey@...l.com>,
        Alex Hung <alex.hung@...onical.com>,
        Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] ALSA: hda - use dell_micmute_led_set() instead of
 dell_app_wmi_led_set()

> On Thursday 08 December 2016 13:36:14 Michał Kępień wrote:
> > --- a/sound/pci/hda/dell_wmi_helper.c
> > +++ b/sound/pci/hda/dell_wmi_helper.c
> > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/dell-led.h>
> > 
> >  static int dell_led_value;
> > -static int (*dell_led_set_func)(int, int);
> > +static int (*dell_led_set_func)(int);
> 
> Suggestion: what about changing name to dell_micmute_led_set_func to 
> match real function name which is used after this patch?

While I like the idea itself, implementing it will double the number of
lines that this patch changes (6 vs. 12), arguably making its intention
less clear.  Please let me know if you would really like this to happen
(perhaps as a separate patch?), otherwise I will skip this idea in v2.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Kępień