linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/23] gpio: mockup: use dynamic device IDs

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:59:35 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/23] gpio: mockup: use dynamic device IDs

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 1:50 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 01:04:29PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:49 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 05:45:39PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> > > >
> > > > We're currently creating chips at module init time only so using a
> > > > static index for dummy devices is fine. We want to support dynamically
> > > > created chips however so we need to switch to dynamic device IDs.
> > >
> > > It misses ida_destroy().
> >
> > No, we always call ida_free() for separate IDs when removing devices
> > and we remove all devices at module exit so no need to call
> > ida_destroy().
>
> Perhaps couple of words about this in the commit message?
>

But ida_destroy() and ida_free() are already well documented. It's
clear that we remove all devices at exit and that every device removes
its ID, there's really no point in mentioning it again.

Bart