linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] software nodes: Split software_node

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: <CAJZ5v0geFmdPFHvE9Rfd9jyErbgmRb=2SWRTc+uivOuWa02-3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 20:17:57 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/6] software nodes: Split software_node_notify()

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 9:46 AM Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 08:30:06PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:03 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 07:27:12PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > >
> > > > Split software_node_notify_remove) out of software_node_notify()
> > > > and make device_platform_notify() call the latter on device addition
> > > > and the former on device removal.
> > > >
> > > > While at it, put the headers of the above functions into base.h,
> > > > because they don't need to be present in a global header file.
> > > >
> > > > No intentional functional impact.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/base/base.h      |    3 ++
> > > >  drivers/base/core.c      |    9 +++---
> > > >  drivers/base/swnode.c    |   61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > > >  include/linux/property.h |    2 -
> > > >  4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/swnode.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/swnode.c
> > > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/swnode.c
> > > > @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
> > > >  #include <linux/property.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > >
> > > > +#include "base.h"
> > > > +
> > > >  struct swnode {
> > > >       struct kobject kobj;
> > > >       struct fwnode_handle fwnode;
> > > > @@ -1053,7 +1055,7 @@ int device_add_software_node(struct devi
> > > >        * balance.
> > > >        */
> > > >       if (device_is_registered(dev))
> > > > -             software_node_notify(dev, KOBJ_ADD);
> > > > +             software_node_notify(dev);
> > >
> > > Should this now be called "software_node_notify_add()" to match up with:
> > >
> > > >       if (device_is_registered(dev))
> > > > -             software_node_notify(dev, KOBJ_REMOVE);
> > > > +             software_node_notify_remove(dev);
> > >
> > > The other being called "_remove"?
> > >
> > > Makes it more obvious to me :)
> >
> > The naming convention used here follows platform_notify() and
> > platform_notify_remove(), and the analogous function names in ACPI for
> > that matter.
>
> So why not rename those instead: platform_notify() to
> platform_notify_add() and so on? You are in any case modifying
> acpi_device_notify() in this series, and I think there is only one
> place left where .platform_notify is assigned. I believe you also
> wouldn't then need to worry about the function name collision (3/6).
>
> > I thought that adding _add in just one case would be sort of odd, but
> > of course I can do that, so please let me know what you want me to do.
>
> I would prefer the "_add" ending, but in any case, FWIW:
>
> Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>

Thanks!