linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/40] soundwire: add debugfs support

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:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:29:13 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
        jank@...ence.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        slawomir.blauciak@...el.com, Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/40] soundwire: add debugfs support


>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/debugfs.c b/drivers/soundwire/debugfs.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..8d86e100516e
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/debugfs.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause)
> 
> No, for debugfs-specific code, that dual license makes no sense, right?
> Don't cargo-cult SPDX identifiers please.

It's a miss, I used EXPORT_GPL and missed this line, will fix.

> 
>> +// Copyright(c) 2017-19 Intel Corporation.
> 
> Spell the year out fully unless you want lawyers knocking on your door :)

haha, will fix.

> 
>> +
>> +#include <linux/device.h>
>> +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
>> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> +#include <linux/soundwire/sdw.h>
>> +#include <linux/soundwire/sdw_registers.h>
>> +#include "bus.h"
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>> +struct dentry *sdw_debugfs_root;
>> +#endif
> 
> This whole file is not built if that option is not enabled, so why the
> #ifdef?

Ah, will look into this, thanks!