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]

Date:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:16:04 +0100
From:   Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To:     Mychaela Falconia <mychaela.falconia@...il.com>
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 01. 12. 20, 8:09, Mychaela Falconia wrote:
> 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?

Yes. Or the other way around. Add this new using const+assign_bit and 
convert the rest on the top of the series.

thanks,
-- 
js