linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 12/16] cxl/pci: Change find_cxl

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: <Z6W6JcRYjSOglSit@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 02:45:41 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	nifan.cxl@...il.com, dave@...olabs.net, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
	dave.jiang@...el.com, alison.schofield@...el.com,
	vishal.l.verma@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, mahesh@...ux.ibm.com, oohall@...il.com,
	Benjamin.Cheatham@....com, rrichter@....com,
	nathan.fontenot@....com, Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com,
	lukas@...ner.de, ming.li@...omail.com,
	PradeepVineshReddy.Kodamati@....com, alucerop@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/16] cxl/pci: Change find_cxl_port() to non-static

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 04:23:56PM -0600, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Terry Bowman wrote:
> > CXL PCIe Port Protocol Error support will be added in the future. This
> > requires searching for a CXL PCIe Port device in the CXL topology as
> > provided by find_cxl_port(). But, find_cxl_port() is defined static
> > and as a result is not callable outside of this source file.
> > 
> > Update the find_cxl_port() declaration to be non-static.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>
> > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> 
> Generally I think Dan prefers this type of patch to be squashed with the
> patch which requires the change.  But I'm ok with the smaller patches...
> 
> :-D
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> 

I've read elsewhere that changelog entries should avoid telling
the future - and simply state what the patch is doing.

I.e.: "do the thing" as opposed to "In the future... so do the thing"

The existence of the patch implies there is a user for it.

anyway

Reviewed-by: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>