linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] iio: afe: iio-rescale: Re-use generic struct s32

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: <7ed2cdb9-0719-3535-9e0a-fd9d393f1cd8@axentia.se>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 13:35:09 +0100
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Liam Beguin <liambeguin@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] iio: afe: iio-rescale: Re-use generic struct
 s32_fract

On 2022-01-26 13:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:26:50AM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> It's easy to both remove and to add back "the bigger object". I just
>> don't see the point of the churn. Technically you can probably rearrange
>> stuff in probe and remove the 2nd argument to ->props() altogether and
>> chase pointers from the dev object instead. I don't see the point of
>> that either. It doesn't really make things simpler, it doesn't really
>> make things easier to read. To me, it's just pointless churn.
> 
> Since you still haven't got a point the conclusions are wrong.
> The point is (I dunno how more clear to make it) is to have proper
> layering from the (current) design perspective.

I think got the gist of it. I simply do not agree with your conclusion
about what the "proper layering" should be.

Cheers,
Peter