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  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]
Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2017 11:02:58 -0800
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: devres: introduce managed enable and
 disable operations

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:51:52AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> I think it is helps if you think about devm_regulator_enable and regular
> regulator_enable as managed and unmanaged *actions*, not resources. So

That's how I see them but it's still not really helping my concern, in
general if you do a thing with devm_ you don't want to also be
interacting with the same resource in the same way with a non-managed
call.

> managed action of enabling regulator will be undone on remove() and you
> have to manually undo unmanaged regulator_disable() on resume(). It is
> not worse than having unbalanced regulator_enable/disable between
> probe()/suspend()/resume()/remove().

I find it that bit harder to think about - tracking balancing of the
same thing is a lot easier than tracking balancing of two different not
quite equivalent things.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists