linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Rename devm_get_gpiod_from

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: <CACRpkdbr6BGm3mJ_2XOAuootK-ruibiGsG8=LvKhrz1cpUrnhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:05:43 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
        Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
        Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>,
        "linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
        "linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Rename devm_get_gpiod_from_child()

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:39:36 -0800
> Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:

>> Hmm, yeah, I agree, that would be weird. Then let's leave
>> devm_get_gpiod_from_child() as is ;)
>
> Changing the internal implementation has never been the goal of this
> patch. As explained in the commit log, I'm just renaming the function
> to make it consistent with other fwnode functions (as suggested by
> Linus).
> What's happening here is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to
> avoid, and the reason I decided to not change the
> devm_get_gpiod_from_child() prototype/name in the first place.
>
> Linus, is this something you really care about? If that's the case, can
> you step in?

I can only throw up my hands... The way I percieved it, a new function
was added, but I guess it could be that the diffstat was so
convoluted in the other patch (by the way that diff sometimes give
very confusing stuff unless you use the right fuzz) so I misunderstood
some other renaming as introducing a new function.

Please drop the patch if it is controversial.

The name of the function *is* confusing though but maybe it's not
the biggest problem in the world.

Yours,
Linus Walleij