linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 13/35] ACPI: Rename acpi_scan_device_not

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: <20231020174115.0000045a@Huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:41:15 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <x86@...nel.org>, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        <jianyong.wu@....com>, <justin.he@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 13/35] ACPI: Rename
 acpi_scan_device_not_present() to be about enumeration

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:01:30 +0100
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 04:38:01PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
> > acpi_scan_device_not_present() is called when a device in the
> > hierarchy is not available for enumeration. Historically enumeration
> > was only based on whether the device was present.
> > 
> > To add support for only enumerating devices that are both present
> > and enabled, this helper should be renamed. It was only ever about
> > enumeration, rename it acpi_scan_device_not_enumerated().
> > 
> > No change in behaviour is intended.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>  
> 
> Is this another patch which ought to be submitted without waiting
> for the rest of the series?
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Looks like a valid standalone change to me.