linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: vimc: move private defines to a common header

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]

Message-ID: <8e5206fe-240e-e5d3-c675-255aa0df7d57@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 08:27:32 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     helen.koike@...labora.com,
        André Almeida <andrealmeid@...labora.com>,
        mchehab@...nel.org, hverkuil@...all.nl,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        "skh >> Shuah Khan" <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] media: vimc: move private defines to a common header

On 8/12/19 8:24 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Shua,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 08:19:27AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On 8/10/19 8:14 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:45:41PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>> In preparation for collapsing the component driver structure into
>>>> a monolith, move private device structure defines to a new common
>>>> header file.
>>>
>>> Apart from the vimc_device structure, this doesn't seem to be needed.
>>> I'd rather keep each structure private to the .c file that handles it,
>>> and only share vimc_device globally.
>>
>> Right. I initially thought that I needed these global. Once I completed
>> the patches without needing these as global, I overlooked updating the
>> patches.
>>
>> I will take care of that. Any thoughts on vimc.h vs. adding vimc_device
>> struct to existing vimc-common.h
>>
>> As I explained to Helen in response to her comment about:
>>
>> "My thinking is that vimc-common.h is common for all the subdevs and
>> putting vimc-core defines and structures it shares it with the subdev
>> files can be in a separate file.
>>
>> It is more of design choice to keep structures and defined organized.
>> Originally I was thinking all the subdev device structires need to be
>> global, and my patch set I sent out as such doesn't need that. I just
>> overlooked that when I sent the patches out.
>>
>> This reduces the number of things that need to be common, I don't really
>> have any strong reasons for either choice of adding common defines to
>> vimc-common.h vs vimc.h - maybe with a slight tilt towards vimc.h"
> 
> The vimc_device structure fits nicely in vimc-common.h in my opinion, as
> it's used by every component. I don't care much either way.
> 

Sounds good to me.

thanks,
-- Shuah