linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] iio: ltc2688: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get

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:   Sat, 20 Aug 2022 19:09:03 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] iio: ltc2688: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get_enable()

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 4:45 PM Matti Vaittinen
<mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
> On 8/20/22 14:21, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:19:17 +0300
> > Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:

...

> >> +    static const char * const regulators[] = {"vcc", "iovcc"};
> > trivial - slight preference for
> >   { "vcc", "iovcc" };
> >
> > This isn't as important as for numeric values as we get some readability
> > from the quotes but still nice to have.
>
> Right. I'll fix it.

And also make it a reversed xmas tree order.

> > For the whole static / vs non static. My personal preference is not
> > to have the static marking but I don't care that much.
>
> I'd like to stick with the static here. I know this one particular array
> does not have much of a footprint - but I'd like to encourage the habit
> of considering the memory usage. This discussion serves as an example of
> how unknown the impact of making const data static is. I didn't know
> this myself until Sebastian educated me :)  Hence my strong preference
> on keeping this 'static' as an example for others who are as ignorant as
> I were ;) After all, having const data arrays static is quite an easy
> way of improving things - and it really does matter when there is many
> of arrays - or when they contain large data.

But still the same comment about global scope of the variable is applied.

As I explained before, hiding global variables inside a function is a
bad code practice.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko