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 20:49:47 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Nishad Kamdar <nishadkamdar@...il.com>,
        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.

It is odd, but the GPL at the bottom of the file kind of implies it is
ok.  Given that it was published by mtk, I am assuming all is good, but
it would be a good idea to check with the authors to fix this up
properly.

thanks,

greg k-h