linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm/msm: Make .remove and .shutdown HW shutdown consistent

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:   Sun, 24 Jul 2022 23:10:21 +0300
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/msm: Make .remove and .shutdown HW shutdown consistent

On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 at 22:51, Javier Martinez Canillas
<javierm@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/24/22 20:47, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> > Hello Dmitry,
>
> [...]
>
> >> Now there is no point in having this as a separate function. Could you
> >
> > The only reason why I kept this was to avoid duplicating the same comment
> > in two places. I thought that an inline function would be better than that.
> >
> >> please inline it?
> >>
>
> Or do you mean inline it as dropping the wrapper helper and just call to
> drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() in both callbacks ? I'm OK with that but as
> mentioned then we should probably have to duplicate the comment.
>
> Since is marked as inline anyways, the resulting code should be the same.

Yes, I'd like for you to drop the wrapper. I'm fine with duplicating
the comment, since it will be in place where it matters (before
checking ddev->registered) rather than just stating the contract for
the wrapper (which can be easily ignored).

(And yes, I do read patches and commit messages before commenting.)

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry