linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: btcoex: replace init_timer with setup

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:   Fri, 12 May 2017 11:54:55 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Xie Qirong <cheerx1994@...il.com>,
        Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
        Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: btcoex: replace init_timer with setup_timer

Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> writes:

> On 5/12/2017 10:19 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Xie Qirong <cheerx1994@...il.com> writes:
>>
>>> The combination of init_timer and setting up the data and function field
>>> manually is equivalent to calling setup_timer(). This is an api
>>> consolidation only and improves readability.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xie Qirong <cheerx1994@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>   setup_timer.cocci suggested the following improvement:
>>>   drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/btcoex.c:383:1-11: Use
>>>   setup_timer function for function on line 384.
>>>
>>>   Patch was compile checked with: x86_64_defconfig + CONFIG_BRCMFMAC=y +
>>>   CONFIG_BRCMFMAC_USB=y + CONFIG_BRCMFMAC_PCIE=y + CONFIG_BRCM_TRACING=y +
>>>   CONFIG_BRCMDBG=y
>>>
>>>   Kernel version: 4.11.0 (localversion-next is next-20170512)
>>
>> How is this different from the first version?
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9709467/
>
> Hi Kalle,
>
> This is actually the third version. You are referring to the
> not-specifically-named "v2" here, but how are you to know ;-) 

Exactly :)

> This third version is the same as v1 on which I commented to put the
> coccinelle output in the commit message. So I would still keep v2 if
> nothing else changed in v3 apart from my Acked-by: tag.

Ok, but I can easily take v3 (ie. this one) so that you get credit ;)

-- 
Kalle Valo