linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] drivers: ddcci: upstream DDCCI driver

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]

Message-ID: <Yiw+Kil2BmLPQf7H@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 Mar 2022 07:31:06 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Yusuf Khan <yusisamerican@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, javier@...igon.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] drivers: ddcci: upstream DDCCI driver

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 09:09:45PM -0800, Yusuf Khan wrote:
> > How can this ever fail?
> If ddcci_verify_device() fails
> > Not needed, just do not have it.
> I'm assuming you mean the locks?
> > This should not be needed in sysfs.  What tool wants this?
> Its for the idSerial and modalias part of the userland interface.
> > Why "_void"?
> suppressing "initialization of ‘void (*)(struct device *)’ from
> incompatible pointer type ‘int (*)(struct device *)’"

I have no context at all for this email response, sorry.

Take a look at how email discussions work on the mailing list, with
proper amounts of quoting and the like.

Remember, some of us get at least a thousand emails a day to deal with,
and do not remember what we said in the past, nor what it was about, at
all.  By stripping off all context, that ensures we will never remember
it either :(

greg k-h