linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: core: Replace function rtw_free_network

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: <20190606125926.GA1140@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Jun 2019 14:59:26 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     larry.finger@...inger.net, straube.linux@...il.com,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        flbue@....de, puranjay12@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: core: Replace function
 rtw_free_network_nolock

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:42:22PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
> Remove function rtw_free_network_nolock, as all it does is call
> _rtw_free_network_nolock, and rename _rtw_free_network_nolock to
> rtw_free_network_nolock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme.c | 8 +-------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme.c
> index 0abb2df32645..454c5795903d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_mlme.c
> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ static void _rtw_free_network(struct mlme_priv *pmlmepriv, struct wlan_network *
>  	spin_unlock_bh(&free_queue->lock);
>  }
>  
> -void _rtw_free_network_nolock(struct	mlme_priv *pmlmepriv, struct wlan_network *pnetwork)
> +void rtw_free_network_nolock(struct	mlme_priv *pmlmepriv, struct wlan_network *pnetwork)

Why is this function moved from being static to not being static?

that doesn't seem right to me, does it to you?

thanks,

greg k-h