linux-kernel - Re: [V2 2/6] driver core: auxiliary bus: Add driver data helpers

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: <YbB4aYK4fOESbbMl@unreal>
Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:18:33 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com, shuah@...nel.org,
        mgross@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [V2 2/6] driver core: auxiliary bus: Add driver data helpers

On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 08:43:53AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2021, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:03:16AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 09:14:44AM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > Adds get/set driver data helpers for auxiliary devices.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > V2
> > > >   - No changes
> > > > 
> > > >  include/linux/auxiliary_bus.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > I would really like to see an explanation why such obfuscation is really
> > > needed. dev_*_drvdata() is a standard way to access driver data.
> 
> I wouldn't call it obfuscation, but it does looks like abstraction for
> the sake of abstraction, which I usually push back on.  What are the
> technical benefits over using the dev_*() variant?

You can see it in Greg's answer, there is no technical benefits in any
variant. It is simple copy/paste pattern from other buses.

Maybe it is not clear from my response, I don't care if this patch is
going to be applied or not, but I would like to hear someone explains
to me what are the benefits of such one liners.

Thanks