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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:42:21 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> To: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] i2c: parport: Switch to use module_parport_driver() On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:37:45AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:21:46AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:11:19 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > Switch to use module_parport_driver() to reduce boilerplate code. > > > > This has the downside of moving the sanity check of the type parameter > > to run time, instead of driver load time. In particular this means that > > loading the i2c-parport driver without specifying the type will no > > longer fail. > > And this is actually an advantage of the change if you think about it. > Now we can have a module that won't fail at boot time and give the user > a chance to amend parameter at run time if it was wrong at boot time. Okay, for built-in driver it might require to check and fix permissions of the parameter sysfs node (currently 0). > > The driver will load successfully, but won't do anything. > > > > While I prefer user errors to be reported as soon as possible, I don't > > really mind here, as parallel port drivers are not something worth > > debating over at this point in time. As a matter of fact, I can't > > possibly test this change as I no longer have a parallel port on any of > > my systems. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists