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]

Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 16:06:09 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Henning Schild <henning.schild@...mens.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, 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 Wed, 01 Mar 2023, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 2/21/23 15:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I agree with Andy here, please add a -common.o file with a shared
> probe() helper which gets the 2 different gpiod_lookup_table-s
> as parameter and then put the actual probe() function calling
> the helper inside the 2 different .c files.

Thanks for your reviews guys, I really appreciate the help.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]