linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers: Adjust scope for CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM before devm_platform_ioremap

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 Jun 2019 15:30:16 +0800
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: Adjust scope for CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM before
 devm_platform_ioremap_resource()

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:10:25AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> pon., 24 cze 2019 o 20:22 Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> <lkml@...ux.net> napisał(a):
> >
> > On 24.06.19 12:46, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > >> The patch seems pretty trivial and doesn't change any actual code, so
> > >> I don't see hard resons for rejecting it.
> > >>
> > >
> > > In its current form it makes the code even less readable. The #ifdef
> > > should actually be one line lower and touch the comment instead of the
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL() related to a different function.
> >
> > Okay, that missing newline should be fixed (as well as the extra one
> > after the #ifdef). Besides that, I don't see any further problems.
> >
> 
> Are we sure this even changes something? Does kernel documentation get
> generated according to current config options? I really think this
> patch just pollutes the history for now apparent reason.
> 
> Greg, could you give your opinion on this?

Why are you all arguing with a all-but-instinguishable-from-a-bot
persona about a patch that I will never apply?

greg k-h