linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/14] staging: r8188eu: remove hal_reset_security_engine from struct hal

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: <20210906082535.GK1957@kadam>
Date:   Mon, 6 Sep 2021 11:25:35 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
        straube.linux@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] staging: r8188eu: remove hal_reset_security_engine
 from struct hal_ops

On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 02:00:54AM +0100, Phillip Potter wrote:
> Remove hal_reset_security_engine function pointer from struct hal_ops,
> as it is unused.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/hal_intf.h | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/hal_intf.h b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/hal_intf.h
> index 5612274dea4d..3cbe6c277677 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/hal_intf.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/hal_intf.h
> @@ -250,7 +250,6 @@ struct hal_ops {
>  				  u32 bndy_cnt);
>  
>  	void (*hal_notch_filter)(struct adapter *adapter, bool enable);
> -	void (*hal_reset_security_engine)(struct adapter *adapter);
>  	c2h_id_filter c2h_id_filter_ccx;
>  };

I love these patchsets which are removing the HAL layer, but it would
be better if you folded patches 1 and 2 together because it would be
easier to review.  That way we can just say "Well, if this patch isn't
correct it will cause a compile error so let's assume it's correct
unless the kbuild-bot complains."

There are other pairs in this patchset which are the same way where they
would be easier to review if they were merged. 3 & 4.  5 & 6.  Etc.

The patcheset is fine but for future reference please fold them together.

Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>

regards,
dan carpenter