linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: aggregator: Fix calling into sleeping GPIO controllers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 2 Feb 2022 11:54:20 +0100
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mikko Salomäki <ms@...arespons.se>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: aggregator: Fix calling into sleeping GPIO controllers

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 9:59 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 10:54 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 9:35 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 10:09 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > > <geert+renesas@...der.be> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > +       return chip->can_sleep ? gpiod_get_value_cansleep(fwd->descs[offset])
> > > > +                              : gpiod_get_value(fwd->descs[offset]);
> > >
> > > This indentation kills the perfectionist in me :-)
> >
> > Why? The above is aligned perfectly ("?" just above ":")?
> >
> > > What about:
> > >
> > >        return chip->can_sleep ?
> > >                gpiod_get_value_cansleep(fwd->descs[offset]) :
> > > gpiod_get_value(fwd->descs[offset]);
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > Or as variant
> > >
> > >        struct gpio_desc *desc = fwd->descs[offset];
> > >
> > >        return chip->can_sleep ? gpiod_get_value_cansleep(desc) :
> > > gpiod_get_value(desc);
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > IMHO, those are ugly as hell ;-)
>
> I have the same opinion about your initial variant. :-)
>
> So, up to the maintainer(s) what to do.
>

It's Geert's code so let's keep his version. I like it better myself too.

Queued for fixes.

Bart