linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI: platform: Ignore SMB0001 only when it has resources

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: <CAJZ5v0iU5LXcjG8j+S1VZbBmTWGdOdM2W4Yf8HMou2=HQW0-nA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:11:10 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, acpica-devel@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        Michael Brunner <michael.brunner@...tron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI: platform: Ignore SMB0001 only when it has resources

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:15:19AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 04:43:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 8:19 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 05:53:13PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 5:16 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > BTW, this doesn't need to increment the count even.  It could just
> > > terminate the walk on the first valid resource found and tell the
> > > caller to return true in that case.
> >
> > Indeed, thank you for the hint!
>
> Actually it's doesn't matter if we count them or not, we still must use the
> context of the call to set up a flag or whatever.

No, it is sufficient to pass a pointer to a bool variable.

> With the current code in mind I prefer to count resources and compare that
> to be non-zero. This will help to read and understand code better.

I'm not sure.  The condition is "if there is at least one valid
resource, skip the device".  Counting them all will make casual
readers wonder why IMO.