linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic out of the core

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: <c02857fe33611ba5794f233ef117c687@walle.cc>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:50:48 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com
Cc:     vigneshr@...com, p.yadav@...com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mtd: spi-nor: Move Software Write Protection logic
 out of the core

Am 2021-03-17 10:30, schrieb Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com:
>>>>>> soft-wr-protect.c or software-write-protect.c ?
>>> 
>>> Having in mind that we have the SWP configs, I think I prefer swp.c.
>>> But let's see what majority thinks, we'll do as majority prefers.
>>> Michael, Pratyush?
>> 
>> It's just an internal name, thus as long as it remotely makes sense,
>> I'm fine. It's just a matter of taste, isn't it?
> 
> Sure, it's a matter of preference. What's yours?

if i have to choose, swp.c

>> But here's one technical reason that would bother me more: name
>> clashes between the core modules: core, sfdp, otp, swp and the
>> vendor names. It is very unlikely, but there is a non-zero chance ;)
>> 
> 
> We can move all manufacturers to a manufacturers/ folder. Each 
> manufacturer
> driver will have to #include "../core.h", about what I have some mixed
> feelings.

I don't think it makes sense as long as there is no clash; or until 
there
are many more core modules, so you can't keep them apart anymore.
It will just make it harder to follow the git history.

-michael