linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] TTY: serdev: Replace depricated macros

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: <YJQp4W2X/tuvLfVA@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 May 2021 19:39:45 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Ivan Bakula <wamreu@...il.com>
Cc:     robh@...nel.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TTY: serdev: Replace depricated macros

On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 08:32:28PM +0200, Ivan Bakula wrote:
> Replace depricated macros ida_simple_get and ida_simple_remove with
> appropriate function calls to ida_alloc and ida_free.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Bakula <wamreu@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/serdev/core.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c b/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c
> index aead0c0c9..5f873960b 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serdev/core.c
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static bool is_serdev_device(const struct device *dev)
>  static void serdev_ctrl_release(struct device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct serdev_controller *ctrl = to_serdev_controller(dev);
> -	ida_simple_remove(&ctrl_ida, ctrl->nr);
> +	ida_free(&ctrl_ida, ctrl->nr);
>  	kfree(ctrl);
>  }
>  
> @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ struct serdev_controller *serdev_controller_alloc(struct device *parent,
>  	if (!ctrl)
>  		return NULL;
>  
> -	id = ida_simple_get(&ctrl_ida, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	id = ida_alloc(&ctrl_ida, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (id < 0) {
>  		dev_err(parent,
>  			"unable to allocate serdev controller identifier.\n");
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

If these really are "deprecated", why not just do a search/replace
across the whole tree and change them?  Or if not, what is wrong with
the existing ones?

Why shouldn't we be using the old calls?  What is wrong with them?

thanks,

greg k-h