linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] w1: Add subsystem kernel public interface

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 1 May 2017 12:36:26 -0500
From:   "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
To:     Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] w1: Add subsystem kernel public interface

On 04/29/2017 11:28 AM, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi everyone
> 
> 16.03.2017, 18:20, "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>:
>> Like other subsystems we should be able to define slave devices outside
>> of the w1 directory. To do this we move public facing interface
>> definitions to include/linux/w1.h and rename the internal definition
>> file to w1_internal.h.
>>
>> As w1_family.h and w1_int.h contained almost entirely public
>> driver interface definitions we simply removed these files and
>> moved the remaining definitions into w1_internal.h.
> 
> w1_int.h was a shortname for w1_internal.h actually
> 
>> With this we can now start to move slave devices out of w1/slaves and
>> into the subsystem based on the function they implement, again like
>> other drivers.
> 
> I'm not against this patch per-se, I especially like linux/w1 include instead of ../w1.h,
> quite curious why didn't I move include file into linux directory in the first place,
> but please elaborate why is this needed?
> 

I'm moving the bq27xxx driver out of w1 and into power/supply where it
should be, see:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/16/688

> Also I do not agree with TI copyright in the new inclusion file which is merely a movement of the old file.
> 

There is more going on that just moving the file, this was a lot of
re-work, also I kept your copyright, is it a problem to add another? If
so I'm fine with that too and can remove it.

Andrew