linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: gpio: gpio-sim: Fix missing chip disablements

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: <CAMRc=McWYf2-2nxiRKpMumzbp6irfi46873-KXxF5UbWXxU_Hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:44:09 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	bamv2005@...il.com, shuah@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: gpio: gpio-sim: Fix missing chip disablements

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 2:26 PM Koichiro Den <koichiro.den@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:26:27AM GMT, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > Hi! Thanks for addressing it.
> >
> > Is there any place in this file where we'd call remove_chip() without
> > calling disable_chip() first? Maybe we can fold disable_chip() into
> > remove_chip() and make the patch much smaller?
>
> My aplogies for being late.
>
> Yes, there are five places where I intentionally omitted disable_chip()
> calls before remove_chip() because the chip wasn't enabled in thoses cases.
> I scattered disable_chip() calls only where truly necessary. I also think
> explicit enable_chip()/disable_chip() pairing look more clean and readable.
>
> That being said, I'm fine with your suggestion.
>
> -Koichiro Den
>
> >
> > Bart

No, that's fine, let me pick it up as is then.

Bartosz