linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] i2c: use void pointers for supplying data for reads and writes

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: <20210111210254.GB17475@kunai>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 22:02:54 +0100
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] i2c: use void pointers for supplying data for
 reads and writes


> I think it is fine to require from a caller that they are aware that a
> byte (or byte array) must be passed to i2c functions. Given the (maybe)
> two problems I pointed out above making it a bit harder to pass non-byte
> data to these functions doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
> 
> Obviously your mileage varies, but I personally like having an explicit
> type in the API. I guess we have to agree to not agree and let Wolfram
> decide if he likes your change or not.

I am on Uwe's side here. I like it being explicit and think the casts as
they are now are the smaller problem.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)