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

Message-ID: <efcccedb-58e0-13a8-5c21-2e519e9fc335@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Jul 2022 22:15:03 +0200
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To:     Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
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 7/24/22 22:10, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> 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.)
> 

OK. I'll post a v3 tomorrow doing that then. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat