linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mtd: spi-nor: sfdp: Keep SFDP definitions private

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]

Date:   Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:10:09 +0000
From:   <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
To:     <michael@...le.cc>, <p.yadav@...com>
CC:     <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <richard@....at>, <vigneshr@...com>,
        <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mtd: spi-nor: sfdp: Keep SFDP definitions private

On 4/6/22 13:31, Michael Walle wrote:
> 
>>> That's correct, but I think exposing just the public defines in sfdp.h
>>> is
>>> the path to follow. We should keep private all the definitions that we
>>> can
>>> private in sfdp.c and expose publicly in sfdp.h just the ones that are
>>> shared.
>>> Flash collisions, and implicitly the need of public SFDP definitions,
>>> should be
>>> an exception, so I expect sfdp.h to be short in size.
>>
>> I disagree. I think we should keep everything in the same place. And
>> since we need to expose this to manufacturer drivers, that place is
>> sfdp.h. Who is going to cast the tiebreaking vote here? ;-)
> 
> I'm leaning towards Pratyush opinion unless there is a clear advantage
> to move the defines.

Okay. Then we should move all the table definitions to sfdp.h, right?