linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 07/10] acpi/nfit: Move acpi_nfit_notify() before acpi_nfit

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:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 12:52:52 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        vishal.l.verma@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org, dave.jiang@...el.com,
        ira.weiny@...el.com, rui.zhang@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/10] acpi/nfit: Move acpi_nfit_notify() before acpi_nfit_add()

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 11:48 AM Wilczynski, Michal
<michal.wilczynski@...el.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/29/2023 6:06 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 6:51 PM Michal Wilczynski
> > <michal.wilczynski@...el.com> wrote:
> >> To use new style of installing event handlers acpi_nfit_notify() needs
> >> to be known inside acpi_nfit_add(). Move acpi_nfit_notify() upwards in
> >> the file, so it can be used inside acpi_nfit_add().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 14 +++++++-------
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> >> index 07204d482968..aff79cbc2190 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> >> @@ -3312,6 +3312,13 @@ void acpi_nfit_shutdown(void *data)
> >>  }
> >>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_nfit_shutdown);
> >>
> >> +static void acpi_nfit_notify(struct acpi_device *adev, u32 event)
> >> +{
> >> +       device_lock(&adev->dev);
> >> +       __acpi_nfit_notify(&adev->dev, adev->handle, event);
> >> +       device_unlock(&adev->dev);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  static int acpi_nfit_add(struct acpi_device *adev)
> >>  {
> >>         struct acpi_buffer buf = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
> >> @@ -3446,13 +3453,6 @@ void __acpi_nfit_notify(struct device *dev, acpi_handle handle, u32 event)
> >>  }
> >>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__acpi_nfit_notify);
> >>
> >> -static void acpi_nfit_notify(struct acpi_device *adev, u32 event)
> >> -{
> >> -       device_lock(&adev->dev);
> >> -       __acpi_nfit_notify(&adev->dev, adev->handle, event);
> >> -       device_unlock(&adev->dev);
> >> -}
> >> -
> >>  static const struct acpi_device_id acpi_nfit_ids[] = {
> >>         { "ACPI0012", 0 },
> >>         { "", 0 },
> >> --
> > Please fold this patch into the next one.  By itself, it is an
> > artificial change IMV.
>
> I agree with you, but I got told specifically to do that.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/e0f67199-9feb-432c-f0cb-7bdbdaf9ff63@linux.intel.com/

Whether or not this is easier to review is kind of subjective.

If there were more code to move, I would agree, but in this particular
case having to review two patches instead of just one is a bit of a
hassle IMV.