linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (asus-ec-sensors) do not print from .probe()

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: <791af285-ad53-625a-8d3a-2be8d0022c75@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:25:52 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Eugene Shalygin <eugene.shalygin@...il.com>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (asus-ec-sensors) do not print from .probe()

On 2/17/22 11:49, Eugene Shalygin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 20:33, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/17/22 10:43, Eugene Shalygin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 19:26, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>>> Looks like you did not run checkpatch.
>>>
>>> I did (0 errors/warnings/checks). What needs to be corrected?
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. It appears that the continuation line in the declaration
>> confuses it. Otherwise you would get:
>>
>> WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
> 
> Added in v2, thank you!
> 
>>>> Either case, I think you should just drop this function In probe:
>>>
>>> Yes, currently that function is tiny, but some tests with motherboards
>>> from other families are done by users and if I add other families, the
>>> information required for each board model will grow and in that case
>>> I'd switch from dmi_system_id array to a custom struct to define all
>>> the board-related data at at the same place, and to save some space in
>>> the module binary, as unused parts of the dmi_system_id array already
>>> take a quarter of the total binary size. So, the function will likely
>>> get some more code soon.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, ok. Wouldn't you still need some kind of dmi match ?
> 
> Of course, just not via dmi_first_match():
> https://github.com/zeule/asus-ec-sensors/blob/feature/prime-x470-pro-no-dmi/asus-ec-sensors.c#L787
> 

!strcmp(), and, yes, dmi functions can return NULL.

Guenter