linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] staging: r8188eu: remove _io

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]

Date:   Mon, 6 Sep 2021 20:19:05 +0300
From:   Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] staging: r8188eu: remove _io_ops structure

On 9/6/21 16:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 12:00:46AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>> -void _rtw_read_mem(struct adapter *adapter, u32 addr, u32 cnt, u8 *pmem)
>> -{
>> -	void (*_read_mem)(struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl, u32 addr, u32 cnt, u8 *pmem);
>> -	struct io_priv *pio_priv = &adapter->iopriv;
>> -	struct	intf_hdl		*pintfhdl = &pio_priv->intf;
>> -
>> -
>> -	if (adapter->bDriverStopped || adapter->bSurpriseRemoved)
>> -	     return;
>> -	_read_mem = pintfhdl->io_ops._read_mem;
>> -	_read_mem(pintfhdl, addr, cnt, pmem);
>> -
>> -}
> 
> This is odd, in that it resolves down to usb_read_mem which does
> nothing at all.
> 
> And then no one calls this at all either?
> 
> How about removing the io ops that are not used at all first, one at a
> time, making it obvious what is happening, and then convert the ones
> that are used one at a time, and when all is done, then removing the
> structure?
> 

Just have started to cut one big patch to smaller ones and does it make 
sense to group changes like: one for usb_read*, one for usb_write* and 
one for usb_port*? I think, it would be cleaner and series won't be too big.


What do you think?




With regards,
Pavel Skripkin