linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI: scan: Fix up _DEP-related terminology with supplier/consumer

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]

Message-ID: <054cc790-bebb-9c84-e14c-16b9460d1636@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 19:21:50 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: scan: Fix up _DEP-related terminology with
 supplier/consumer

Hi,

On 12/7/20 6:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> The ACPI namespace scanning code uses the terms master/slave when
> populating the list of _DEP dependencies, but that use has no
> external exposures and is not mandated by nor associated with any
> external specifications.
> 
> Change the language used through-out to supplier/consumer.
> 
> No functional impact.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>

Thanks, patch looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>

Regards,

Hans



> ---
>  drivers/acpi/scan.c |   12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -51,8 +51,8 @@ static u64 spcr_uart_addr;
>  
>  struct acpi_dep_data {
>  	struct list_head node;
> -	acpi_handle master;
> -	acpi_handle slave;
> +	acpi_handle supplier;
> +	acpi_handle consumer;
>  };
>  
>  void acpi_scan_lock_acquire(void)
> @@ -1881,8 +1881,8 @@ static void acpi_device_dep_initialize(s
>  		if (!dep)
>  			return;
>  
> -		dep->master = dep_devices.handles[i];
> -		dep->slave  = adev->handle;
> +		dep->supplier = dep_devices.handles[i];
> +		dep->consumer  = adev->handle;
>  		adev->dep_unmet++;
>  
>  		mutex_lock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
> @@ -2058,8 +2058,8 @@ void acpi_walk_dep_device_list(acpi_hand
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&acpi_dep_list_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(dep, tmp, &acpi_dep_list, node) {
> -		if (dep->master == handle) {
> -			acpi_bus_get_device(dep->slave, &adev);
> +		if (dep->supplier == handle) {
> +			acpi_bus_get_device(dep->consumer, &adev);
>  			if (!adev)
>  				continue;
>  
> 
> 
>