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, 20 Apr 2018 14:24:18 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <lenb@...nel.org>,
        <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <arnd@...db.de>, <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>, <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        <linuxarm@...wei.com>, <z.liuxinliang@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ACPI / PNP: Don't add "enumeration_by_parent"
 devices

Hi Mika,

On 20/04/2018 14:07, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 06:07:25PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>> +	} else {
>> +		device->driver_data = dev;
>
> I think this deserves a comment explaining why we (ab)use driver_data
> like this.

Sure, could add. I didn't see any other way for the acpi_device 
structure to reference the derived PNP device.

TBH, This overall approach is not good since we are creating the PNP 
device in the scan, and then leaving the device in limbo, waiting for 
the parent to add it, if at all. There's no rule for this.

So I'm looking for ideas on how to improve this.

Thanks,
John

>
> .
>


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ