linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] usb: host: pci: introduce PCI vendor ID for Netlogic

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]

Message-ID: <1521041253.4511.16.camel@suse.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:27:33 +0100
From:   Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:     Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...data.com>,
        Richard Leitner <dev@...l1n.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     bhelgaas@...gle.com, mathias.nyman@...el.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] usb: host: pci: introduce PCI vendor ID for Netlogic

Am Mittwoch, den 14.03.2018, 14:31 +0100 schrieb Richard Leitner:
> Hi Oliver,
> thank you for your feedback!
> 
> On 03/14/2018 01:17 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 14.03.2018, 11:29 +0100 schrieb Richard Leitner:
> > > From: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...data.com>
> > > 
> > > Replace the hardcoded PCI vendor ID of Netlogic with a definition in
> > > pci_ids.h
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > in general, why?
> > Does this patch generate any benefit for any developer
> > reading the source? I don't see it. Does it cause an
> > issue for anybody who has a log file with the nummerical
> > ID and needs to grep for it? Yes it does.
> 
> I'll send a v2 where I also use this definition in 
> arch/mips/netlogic/xlp/ instead of PCI_VENDOR_NETLOGIC from
> arch/mips/include/asm/netlogic/xlp-hal/iomap.h.
> 
> Therefore it will remove this definition from the iomap.h
> and move it to pci_ids.h
> 
> This will IMHO be a clear benefit as it removes a redundant
> definition.

Well, but it does not. Removing a redundant definition is a clear
benefit. But you are not removing a definition. You are introducing
a preprocessor constant. Why?
What is its benefit?

	Regards
		Oliver