linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pps: clients: parport: Switch to use module_parport

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, 11 May 2021 09:26:36 +0200
From:   Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        Alexander Gordeev <lasaine@....cs.msu.su>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pps: clients: parport: Switch to use
 module_parport_driver()

On 11/05/21 09:18, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:05:00AM +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
>> On 10/05/21 16:13, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> Switch to use module_parport_driver() to reduce boilerplate code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/pps/clients/pps_parport.c | 42 ++++++-------------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pps/clients/pps_parport.c b/drivers/pps/clients/pps_parport.c
>>> index 7a41fb7b0dec..42f93d4c6ee3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pps/clients/pps_parport.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pps/clients/pps_parport.c
>>> @@ -22,8 +22,6 @@
>>>  #include <linux/parport.h>
>>>  #include <linux/pps_kernel.h>
>>>  
>>> -#define DRVDESC "parallel port PPS client"
>>> -
>>>  /* module parameters */
>>>  
>>>  #define CLEAR_WAIT_MAX		100
>>> @@ -138,6 +136,12 @@ static void parport_attach(struct parport *port)
>>>  		.dev		= NULL
>>>  	};
>>>  
>>> +	if (clear_wait > CLEAR_WAIT_MAX) {
>>> +		pr_err("clear_wait value should be not greater then %d\n",
>>> +		       CLEAR_WAIT_MAX);
>>> +		return;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>
>> Why do you need to do so? Maybe a comment would be welcomed.
> 
> It's in original code, I just moved it to ->probe().
> 
> What comment do you want to have here, because original code has no comment (I
> think in any case it's out of scope of this change, but may be prepended or
> appended to the series)?

Mmm... these functions can be called at different times, so I don't know if we
can just move the code safely.

Maybe Alexander (in CC) can help us? :)

Ciao,

Rodolfo

-- 
GNU/Linux Solutions                  e-mail: giometti@...eenne.com
Linux Device Driver                          giometti@...ux.it
Embedded Systems                     phone:  +39 349 2432127
UNIX programming                     skype:  rodolfo.giometti