linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170821170415.kttnqiwj2fkntsc7@pd.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:04:15 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc:     "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform_list()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:41:38PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> Putting to a single line leads to "line over 80 characters" warning
> from checkpatch.pl.  Would you still advice to do that?

Yes, the 80 cols rule is not a hard one. Rather, it should be overridden
by human good judgement, like making the code more readable.

> strncmp() is fine without these, but it'd be prudent in case someone
> decides to print these strings with printk().  Will do.

Someone does already use them in printk():

+               pr_err(PREFIX "Vendor \"%6.6s\" System \"%8.8s\" Revision 0x%x has a known ACPI BIOS problem.\n",
+                      acpi_blacklist[i].oem_id,
+                      acpi_blacklist[i].oem_table_id,
+                      acpi_blacklist[i].oem_revision);


> 'data' here is private to the caller.  So, I do not think we need to
> define the bits.  Shall I change the name to 'driver_data' to make it
> more explicit?

You changed it to 'data'. It was a u32-used-as-boolean is_critical_error
before.

So you can just as well make it into flags and people can extend those
flags if needed. A flag bit should be enough in most cases anyway. If
they really need driver_data, then they can add a void * member.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.