linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ipmi: bt-bcm: Use platform_get_irq

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e5d4574d-cc8d-a24d-9c76-f32390b0472b@web.de>
Date:   Fri, 3 Apr 2020 21:02:50 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi: bt-bcm: Use platform_get_irq_optional()

> In this function's reference function 'bt_bmc_probe()',

I have got understanding difficulties for this information.
Would you like to refer to the function “bt_bmc_config_irq”?


> there are judgments of print message about 'bt_bmc->irq',

Would an other wording be nicer?


> so use platform_get_irq_optional() instead of platform_get_irq()
> to avoid redundant dev_err() message.

Will a separate sentence be helpful?

How do you think about another bit of fine-tuning for the commit message?

Regards,
Markus