linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] component: add debugfs support

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

Message-id: <4fa2267d-462b-ebef-7504-508084f4797f@samsung.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:21:19 +0100
From:   Maciej Purski <m.purski@...sung.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] component: add debugfs support



On 11/30/2017 01:54 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 01:48:32PM +0100, Maciej Purski wrote:
>> Currently there is no information in any vfs about which devices
>> a master component consists of, what makes debugging hard if
>> one of the component devices fails to register.
>>
>> Add 'device_component' directory to debugfs. Create a new file for each
>> component master, when it has been added. Remove it on a master
>> deletion. Show a list of devices required by the given master and their
>> status (registered or not). This provides an easy way to check, which
>> device has failed to register if the given master device is not
>> available in the system.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Purski <m.purski@...sung.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v4:
>> - fix and expand commit message
>> - inline no-op functions
> 
> inline on static functions makes no sense - the compiler itself is at
> liberty to inline any static function that it thinks would benefit,
> and it is likely to do so with such a simple function.
> 
> Generally we prefer to omit "inline" in .c files and let the compiler
> decide whether to inline or not.
> 
> What was the reason for making this change?  Do you have a case where
> this doesn't happen?
> 
I don't have any case. I just thought this would be more obvious, but if the 
general preference is to omit "inline", I'll fix this in the next version. Thanks.

Best regards,

Maciej