linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] tty: add port flag to suppress ready signalling on open

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: <CA+uuBqa-k0Ztt18cetCdYs=6tBk8xTHufaFAcbpA3wert8nFAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 23:09:50 -0800
From:   Mychaela Falconia <mychaela.falconia@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Mychaela N . Falconia" <falcon@...ecalypso.org>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] tty: add port flag to suppress ready signalling on open

On 11/30/20, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org> wrote:
> port can be const here.
> [...]
> We have assign_bit() for these cases these days.

Johan's patch adding test and set accessor inline functions for the
new flag follows the style of the existing accessor inline functions
for previously existing flags, for the sake of consistency. If we are
going to use the new style (const for test functions, assign_bit() for
set functions) for the new flag, then we should also change all
existing ones for consistency. In terms of patch splitting, would it
be most kosher to have one patch that updates the style of existing
accessor inline functions, and then the interesting patch that adds
the new flag?

M~