linux-kernel - nvkm_devinit_func.disable() to be made void

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2023 20:10:43 +0530
From:   Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
To:     Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>, Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
        Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@...rosoft.com>,
        Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: nvkm_devinit_func.disable() to be made void

Hello,
It appears that the callback function disable() of struct nvkm_devinit_func does
not need return U64 and can be transformed to be a void. This will impact a few
drivers that have currently implementation of this callback since those always
return 0ULL. So,

Change from
	  8 struct nvkm_devinit_func {
		... ...
	15          u64  (*disable)(struct nvkm_devinit *);
	  1 };

Change to
	  8 struct nvkm_devinit_func {
		... ...
	15          void  (*disable)(struct nvkm_devinit *);
	  1 };

I am unsure if this change will have any UAPI impact. Hence wanted to confirm
with you if you think this transformation is useful. If yes, I will be happy to
submit a patch for your consideration.

Please let me know.

Thank you,
./drv