linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 09/28] drivers: Add generic match helper by ACPI

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: <CAJZ5v0io59U1yy4RnX0fSXFyQ-PSHb1wXjLp7XLi8SzO3hSdVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:40:47 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/28] drivers: Add generic match helper by
 ACPI_COMPANION device

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:38 AM Suzuki K Poulose
<suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 17/06/2019 23:07, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:55 PM Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Add a generic helper to match a device by the ACPI_COMPANION device.
> >> This will be later used for providing wrappers for
> >> (bus/class/driver)_find_device().
> >>
> >> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
> >> Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
> >> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> >> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> >
> > Please fold this change into the patch adding users of device_match_acpi_dev().
>
> There are variants of this by class/bus/driver and all of them are introduced
> as separate patches with the respective users. If we do for this, we have to
> do the same for other matches as well.
>
> i.e, [ device_match_by_attr + class_find_device_by_attr & users +
> driver_find_device_by_attr & users + bus_find_device_by_attr & users ]
>
> And that becomes a large chunk, which could make the review painful.
>
> If you would still like that approach, I could do that in the next revision.

Yes, please.