linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 40/62] gpio: gpio-siox: Use new GPIO_LINE

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]

Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:09:02 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     "thorsten.scherer@...elmann.de" <thorsten.scherer@...elmann.de>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bgolaszewski@...libre.com" <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 40/62] gpio: gpio-siox: Use new GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:42:52AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Matti,
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 07:43:50AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 08:27 +0100, Thorsten Scherer wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 12:30:58PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > > > It's hard for occasional GPIO code reader/writer to know if values
> > > > > 0/1
> > > > > equal to IN or OUT. Use defined GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN and
> > > > > GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_OUT to help them out.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
> > > > 
> > > > for SIOX gpio:
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Thorsten Scherer <t.scherer@...elmann.de>
> > > > 
> > > > > Patches are compile-tested only. I have no HW to really test
> > > > > them.  Thus
> > > > > I'd appreciate carefull review. This work is mainly about
> > > > > converting
> > > > > zeros and ones to the new defines but it wouldn't be first time I
> > > > > get it wrong in one of the patches
> > > > > :)                                                   
> > > > 
> > > > Applied the patch(es) and tested them with SIOX device
> > > > 
> > > > Tested-by: Thorsten Scherer <t.scherer@...elmann.de>
> > > 
> > > Big thanks! It's _really_ nice that someone takes the time to do the
> > > testing! Highly appreciated! :]
> > 
> > without wanting to devalue Thorsten's testing, I think testing your
> > series can be trivially done without a runtime check as your patches
> > won't change the compiled result. So just compile once without the patch
> > and once with and compare the results. If they are bit-by-bit identical
> > everything is fine.
> 
> Right again Uwe. This is correct for most of the modules - assuming
> there's no __LINE__ or time related macros used. Few of the modules did
> get actual changes though.

So as you did this research, I think it's worth pointing this out in the
commit log. Either something like:

	There are no changes in the compile result.

or

	This results in changes to the compiled module because ...

(and probably ... is worth fixing).

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |