linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd: spi-nor: fix locking argument in spi_nor_is

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:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:09:04 +0000
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To:     <michael@...le.cc>, <vigneshr@...com>
CC:     <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <richard@....at>,
        <computersforpeace@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd: spi-nor: fix locking argument in
 spi_nor_is_locked()

On Monday, January 13, 2020 12:19:47 PM EET Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
> Am 2020-01-13 11:10, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
> > Hi, Michael,
> > 
> > On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 12:23:17 AM EET Michael Walle wrote:
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h b/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
> >> index b661fd948a25..a8fcb1d70510 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/spi-nor.h
> >> @@ -235,6 +235,7 @@ enum spi_nor_ops {
> >> 
> >>         SPI_NOR_OPS_ERASE,
> >>         SPI_NOR_OPS_LOCK,
> >>         SPI_NOR_OPS_UNLOCK,
> >> 
> >> +       SPI_NOR_OPS_IS_LOCKED,
> >> 
> >>  };
> > 
> > There is no NOR controller that uses this enum, can we get rid of it?
> 
> you mean the second argument of the spi_nor_lock_and_prep() and
> spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep()? sure. But it removes information from the

yes

> prepare() callback. like in "prepare what?". From what I see its only

Prepare the controller for whatever op. As I see, it is used for taking a bus 
mutex and for enabling some clock.
 
> used for locking. Maybe then rename it to prepare_lock and
> prepare_unlock.
> 

I would keep the function name as it is. Maybe Vignesh has some other opinion 
on this?

Cheers,
ta