linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] greybus: constify the struct device

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: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 13:50:04 -0600
From: Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>
To: "Ricardo B. Marliere" <ricardo@...liere.net>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
 greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] greybus: constify the struct device_type usage

On 2/25/24 5:04 AM, Ricardo B. Marliere wrote:
>>>> On another subject:
>>>>
>>>> Johan might disagree, but I think it would be nice to make
>>>> the definitions of the Greybus device types as static (private)
>>>> and make the is_gb_host_device() etc. functions real functions
>>>> rather than static inlines in <linux/greybus.h>.
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that all of the is_gb_*() functions are called only
>>>> from drivers/greybus/core.c; they could all be moved there rather
>>>> than advertising them in <linux/greybus.h>.
>>> I guess it depends whether they would be used somewhere else in the
>>> future. Perhaps it was left there with that intention when it was first
>>> being developed? I agree, though. Will happily send a patch with this if
>>> desired.
>> Let's clean the code up for what we have today.  If it's needed in the
>> future, we can move the structures then.
> Sounds good to me, will send a v2 then!

I might be misinterpreting Greg's response; I *think* he
agrees with my suggestion.

In any case, please do *not* send v2 with the purpose of
including my suggestion.

If you send a v2, keep it focused on this original patch.
You can then implement the other suggestion as a follow-on
patch (or series).

					-Alex