linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: shorten names of acpi

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]

Date:   Mon, 1 May 2017 22:49:26 +0930
From:   Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@...t42.net>
To:     Micha?? K??pie?? <kernel@...pniu.pl>
Cc:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: shorten names of
 acpi_handle fields

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:33:26PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> As both struct fujitsu_bl and struct fujitsu_laptop represent data
> associated with ACPI devices, drop the "acpi_" prefix from the names of
> the relevant fields of these structures to save some horizontal space.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Micha?? K??pie?? <kernel@...pniu.pl>
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> index 3f232967af04..3695e8075aa6 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@
>  
>  /* Device controlling the backlight and associated keys */
>  struct fujitsu_bl {
> -	acpi_handle acpi_handle;
> +	acpi_handle handle;

I must admit I'm not entirely convinced about this change.  "handle" to me
is very generic and it's not immediately clear from the source usage what it
might be a handle of.  A later patch in the series introduces an additional
handle which includes a suitable suffix, which leaves us with generic and
specific handles within the code.  Although it consumes an additional 5
characters, my feeling is that the additional clarification is worth it.

Regards
  jonathan