linux-kernel - Re: [v4 3/9] platform/x86: asus-armoury: move existing tunings to asus-armoury module

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <61e3f4e3-236a-5960-8fcd-93475afd4b87@inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:48:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Luke Jones <luke@...nes.dev>
cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, 
    platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, 
    Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>, 
    Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>, 
    Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, 
    Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, 
    Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Mario Limonciello <superm1@...nel.org>, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v4 3/9] platform/x86: asus-armoury: move existing tunings to
 asus-armoury module



On Fri, 27 Sep 2024, Luke Jones wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024, at 7:24 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> How much would you like to care for standard compliance concerns
> >>> together with your software developments?
> >>
> >> I only ask about because it seems to deviate from everything else I've viewed. For example the older `asus-wmi.h` has:
> >>
> >> #ifndef _ASUS_WMI_H_
> >> #define _ASUS_WMI_H_
> >
> > Such a naming approach is “popular”, isn't it?
> >
> >
> >> and every other header in the drivers/platform/x86 dir is similar. If what I'm supposed to is omit the leading `_` then sure I'll do it, it's not of any consequence to me.
> >
> > I dare to propose possibilities to take safer identifier selections
> > better into account.
> > I hope that we can benefit more from corresponding collateral evolution.
>
> My sincerest apologies if I missed something in my tone when trying to convey might thoughts - for some things I am still learning in regards to C (I am mostly rust) and the difference was a curious thing to me.
>
> The code is now updated to match your suggestion.

Markus is not an authority on Linux kernel codeing style, rather a
collector of random suggestions about C code that he would like to impose
on the Linux kernel.  So if you consider that his suggestion is not
appropriate in a Linux kernel context, please disregard it.

julia

>
> > Regards,
> > Markus
>
>