linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: mt7621-mmc: Fix single statement macros in sd.c

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:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:47:25 +0530
From:   Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Christian Lütke-Stetzkamp <christian@...mp.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: mt7621-mmc: Fix single statement macros in
 sd.c

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 06:31:32AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 15:08 +0530, Nishad Kamdar wrote:
> > This patch fixes a few single statement macros in sd.c.
> > It converts two macros to inline functions. It removes
> > five other macros and replaces their usages with calls to
> > the function being called in the macro definition.
> > Issue found by checkpatch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> >   - Convert msdc_gate_clk() and msdc_ungate_clk() to inline functions.
> >   - Delete msdc_irq_restore(), msdc_vcore_on(), msdc_vcore_off(),
> >     msdc_vdd_on() and msdc_vdd_off() and replace their usages directly
> >     with calls to the function being called by these macros.
> 
> Nishad, do please look again for uses of these functions
> you are changing.
> 
> Please try removing all the #if 0 blocks instead, and then
> see if there are also now unused functions from those removed
> blocks that could also be removed.
> 
> And Greg, if you look at this, look at the odd license of
> these files.
> 
> It's possible the license is incompatible with the GPL.
> 
Ok, I'll look into that.

thanks for the review.

regards,
nishad