linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] auxdisplay: charlcd: Drop unneeded terminator entry

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: <20210715142546.GG27830@1wt.eu>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:25:46 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Lars Poeschel <poeschel@...onage.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] auxdisplay: charlcd: Drop unneeded terminator
 entry

Hi Andy,

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 04:23:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Besides 0 not being, strictly speaking, a pointer it's redundant after
> the actual terminator NULL entry. Drop the former for good.

It seems to me that there is confusion caused by the absence of
the field names:

>  static struct notifier_block panel_notifier = {
>  	panel_notify_sys,
=> this is notifier_fn_t notifier_call

> -	NULL,
=> this is struct notifier_block __rcu *next

> -	0
=> this is int priority

> +	NULL

So all values look OK, however they're terribly confusing. wouldn't you
prefer to propose a patch to name them instead ? This would be safer,
especially if the structure evolves in the future.

Thanks!
Willy