linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] device: Stop requiring that struct device is embedded in struct pci

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: <20170307045051.GB3913@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2017 05:50:51 +0100
From:   "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>
Cc:     "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] device: Stop requiring that struct device is
 embedded in struct pci_dev

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:44:28AM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-03-07 at 02:41 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > Compilation would break when CONFIG_PCI is not defined for some embedded platforms.
> > More than that, including specific pci_dev structure pointer in generic structure such as device just doesn't sound right.
> > I tested equivalent patch that you sent, but I don't think this is right direction to fix this bug.
> 
> You are welcome to voice your opinion. But unless anyone proposes a better
> alternative I propose to proceed with this approach.

That's not how development happens.  You don't just do "here's a
something I came up with, if you don't like it, tough!"  If people
object, you need to resolve those objections, not ignore them.

Especially when you are breaking the build!!!

come on now, you know better than this.

greg k-h