linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Respond:Patch 0004-Add-support-for-SUNIX-parallel-card

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <732b88dd-651b-6770-b1f1-956aa908d6e0@metux.net>
Date:   Mon, 1 Apr 2019 20:00:35 +0200
From:   "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
To:     Morris Ku <saumah@...il.com>, lee.jones@...aro.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, morris_ku@...ix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Respond:Patch 0004-Add-support-for-SUNIX-parallel-card

On 29.03.19 12:25, Morris Ku wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for review, my replies are inline:

https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

> +> +static struct snx_parport_driver snx_lp_driver = {
> +> +     .name = "lx",
> +> +     .attach = snx_lp_attach,
> +> +     .detach = snx_lp_detach,
> +> +};
> +
> +yet another case of duplication of some standard struct and hard-
> +typecasting ? use struct parport_driver here.
> +
> i will use standard struct(struct lp_driver) ,

you mean struct parport_driver ?

> about struct snx_parport driver,
> i will keep current format , because add a list for store device informations. 

No, your current approach breaks heavily (eg. as soon ans something in
struct parport_driver changes). If you really need to extend it, do it
by nested structs (same like struct parport_driver nests struct
device_driver), and use the proper macros (eg. container_of(), etc)
for typecasting.

Keep in mind: kernel-internal structures are NOT fixed, they can change
anytime - this is a fundamental design decision.

> +don't reimplement existing standard functionality. use the parport
> +subsystem.
> +
> +can i drop it ? it seems that it has no effect when port gone away.

If it's not needed, remove it. We don't like dead code.


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287