linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove rtw

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: <CAA=Fs0khyHV4AytW=smDMmKtR2Dv8QazcOBuuNpPfN+Z0nc_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 23:24:29 +0100
From:   Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
To:     gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove rtw_ioctl function

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 11:23, gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 10:08:31AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 9:45 AM Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk> wrote:
> > > -int rtw_ioctl(struct net_device *dev, struct ifreq *rq, int cmd)
> > > -{
> > > -       struct iwreq *wrq = (struct iwreq *)rq;
> > > -       int ret = 0;
> > > -
> > > -       switch (cmd) {
> > > -       case RTL_IOCTL_WPA_SUPPLICANT:
> > > -               ret = wpa_supplicant_ioctl(dev, &wrq->u.data);
> > > -               break;
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_88EU_AP_MODE
> > > -       case RTL_IOCTL_HOSTAPD:
> > > -               ret = rtw_hostapd_ioctl(dev, &wrq->u.data);
> > > -               break;
> > > -#endif /*  CONFIG_88EU_AP_MODE */
> > > -       case SIOCDEVPRIVATE:
> > > -               ret = rtw_ioctl_wext_private(dev, &wrq->u);
> > > -               break;
> >
> >
> > I think these functions are all defined 'static' in the same file, so
> > removing the
> > caller will cause a warning about an unused function. Better remove the
> > called functions along with the caller.
>
> I get no build warnings/errors with this patch applied, which is odd.
>
> So I'll take this for now, but a follow-on patch to remove these unused
> functions would be great to have.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Dear Greg,

Many thanks, and of course, I shall prepare one now.

Regards,
Phil