linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] leds: simatic-ipc-leds-gpio: split up into multiple drivers

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]

Message-ID: <Y/TaftuNMABevCWV@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 16:51:42 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Henning Schild <henning.schild@...mens.com>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] leds: simatic-ipc-leds-gpio: split up into multiple
 drivers

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 03:43:54PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote:
> Am Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:51:03 +0200
> schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 01:24:13PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote:
> > > In order to clearly describe the dependencies between the gpio  

...

> > > +#ifndef __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO
> > > +#define __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO  
> > 
> > > +#endif /* __DRIVERS_LEDS_SIMPLE_SIMATIC_IPC_LEDS_GPIO */  
> > 
> > This header doesn't look right.
> > 
> > Have you run `make W=1 ...` against your patches?
> 
> No reports.
> 
> > Even if it doesn't show defined but unused errors
> > the idea is that this should be a C-file, called,
> > let's say, ...-core.c.
> 
> When i started i kind of had a -common.c in mind as well. But then the
> header idea came and i gave it a try, expecting questions in the review.
> 
> It might be a bit unconventional but it seems to do the trick pretty
> well. Do you see a concrete problem or a violation of a rule?

Exactly as described above. The header approach means that *all* static
definitions must be used by each user of that file. Otherwise you will
get "defined but not used" compiler warning.

And approach itself is considered (at least by me) as a hackish way to
achieve what usually should be done via C-file.

So, if maintainers are okay, I wouldn't have objections, but again
I do not think it's a correct approach.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko