linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] pwm: sysfs: Utilize an array for polarity strings

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, 28 Aug 2022 14:19:22 -0400
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] pwm: sysfs: Utilize an array for polarity strings

On Sun, 2022-08-28 at 20:40 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 4:46 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2022-08-28 at 09:40 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 28, 2022, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 20:07 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > Code is smaller and looks nicer if we combine polarity strings
> > > > > into an array.
> 
> > > First of all, please remove unnecessary context when replying.
> > 
> > I am _very_ aware of context.
> > I specifically left the code in.
> > 
> > > > It's less robust though as PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL and _INVERSED
> > > > are now required to be 0 and 1.  As the only 2 values in
> > > > an enum they are, but that's not really guaranteed unless
> > > > you read the enum definition.
> > > 
> > > So, what do you suggest here and in many other similar places (yes, ABI
> > > implied) in the kernel?
> > 
> > Leaving the code alone.
> 
> It's good that PWM maintainers look at this differently.

The enum is not userspace so it's not ABI.

The PWM maintainers are free to do what they want but I
prefer obviousness over compactness.