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]

Message-ID: <YTbyFyVe37YTV8VC@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 07:01:11 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Cc:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
        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 Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 08:19:05PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> 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?

I will not know until I see the patches, so no need to ask :)