linux-kernel - Re: [Resubmit] Read battery voltage from Logitech Gaming mice

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: <c9acf405f4e10e587809fe88a07ffa882a6ed7de.camel@archlinux.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:29:23 +0100
From:   Filipe Laíns <lains@...hlinux.org>
To:     Pedro Vanzella <pedro@...rovanzella.com>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc:     "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Resubmit] Read battery voltage from Logitech Gaming mice

On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 10:22 -0400, Pedro Vanzella wrote:
> I actually resubmitted by Filipe's request, since the patches weren't 
> applying cleanly anymore. The idea was to apply these patches and in the 
> future refactor the code to use the feature discovery routines.

Yes, I want to refactor everything so I though there was no point in us
changing the patch set again. I did not review the first revision of
the patch set so if that works for you (Benjamin) we can just merge
that.

> So we (you, me and Filipe) should probably come up with an action plan 
> here. The way I see it there are two issues here: one is adding this 
> feature, and the other is refactoring to use feature discovery for all 
> features. There are advantages and disadvantages to doing one or another 
> first and we might want to discuss that.
> 
> By merging this first (probably after I resubmit it as a single squashed 
> patch) we get to test it a bit better and have a usable feature sooner. 
> Plenty of people have been requesting this and there is plenty of stuff 
> that can be built on top of it, but only once this is actually merged I 
> think.
> 
> On the other hand, by first refactoring the rest of the code to use 
> 0x0001 we avoid some rework on this patch. It should be minor, as most 
> functions here do all the heavy lifting after the initial feature 
> discovery, and are thus mostly independent from how that is done.
> 
> I'm happy either way, so just let me know what you guys decide.

I am also fine either way so I think we should just re-send the first
revision of your patch set as Benjamin requested.

Thank you,
Filipe Laíns

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)