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: <1481816580.2090.5.camel@Pali-Nokia-N900>
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:43:00 +0100
From:   Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To:     Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>
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 Thu Dec 15 15:46:28 2016 Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl> wrote:
> > 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

If some patch makes final result of code better then metric number of lines is not priority.

> 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

If it will be in this or another following patch... I dot care. But this is sound subsystem, so sound maintainers need to decide what they prefer.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com