linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] drivers/i2c: Add port structure to FSI algorithm

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: <CAHp75Vd8M4-mK=Fs_SbSX67NKeNty7vrq0-Y8-GyFdy9u6Q3jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 May 2018 00:27:01 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Eddie James <eajames@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Edward A. James" <eajames@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] drivers/i2c: Add port structure to FSI algorithm

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Eddie James <eajames@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 05/29/2018 06:19 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Eddie James <eajames@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> wrote:

>>>   static int fsi_i2c_probe(struct device *dev)
>>>   {
>>
>> Isn't below somehow repeats of_i2c_register_devices() ?
>> Why not to use it?
>
>
> Because I need to assign all these port structure fields. Also looks like
> of_i2c_register_devices creates new devices; I just want an adapter for each
> port.

Hmm... Wolfram, what is your opinion on this design?


>>> +                       devm_kfree(dev, port);
>>
>> This hurts my eyes. Why?!

> What would you suggest instead?

You even didn't wait for answer, why to ask then?
Moreover, you didn't answer to my question. Why are you doing that
call implicitly?

>>> +       if (!list_empty(&i2c->ports)) {
>>
>> My gosh, this is done already in list_for_each*()

> No, list_for_each_entry does NOT check if the list is empty or if the first
> entry is NULL.

Please, read the macro source code again.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko