linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect detection on Mini2440

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:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:57:26 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Cedric Roux <sed@...e.fr>
Cc:     kgene@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: s3c24xx: Correct SD card write protect
 detection on Mini2440

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 06:55:09PM +0200, Cedric Roux wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 12:23 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>  static struct s3c24xx_mci_pdata mini2440_mmc_cfg __initdata = {
> >> -       .gpio_detect   = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> >> -       .gpio_wprotect = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> >> -       .set_power     = NULL,
> >> -       .ocr_avail     = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> >> +       .gpio_detect     = S3C2410_GPG(8),
> >> +       .gpio_wprotect   = S3C2410_GPH(8),
> >> +       .wprotect_invert = 1,
> >> +       .set_power       = NULL,
> >> +       .ocr_avail       = MMC_VDD_32_33|MMC_VDD_33_34,
> > 
> > This looks unexpected... after patch 1 there should be only one change
> > - one new line added. What happened here?
> 
> This is to align all the '='.
> 
> These were spaces before the '=' so I also used spaces.
> Should I put TABs instead? I looked in the coding style
> and didn't find anything about this specific thing
> (maybe I read too fast though).
> 
> And if this ends up unaligned because 'wprotect_invert'
> requires a second TAB for the others, should I do a separate
> commit?

Ah, I understand. It's okay, thanks!


Best regards,
Krzysztof