linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] HID: corsair-void: Update power supply values with a unified work handler

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: <CALTg27=ZNv5taGCXChRtW90WXfS8iz10koQcSScLJaTHbXwfYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:30:08 +0000
From: Stuart <stuart.a.hayhurst@...il.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-input@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, 
	Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] HID: corsair-void: Update power supply values with a
 unified work handler

> No \n ^^ here.

Thanks, corrected that

> I would do an enum, but it's a matter of taste/preference.

I suppose that makes more sense since they're related, applied

> What is to skip a battery? Anyway, the comments here seem to be
> superfluous as the code is obvious™.

It was supposed to indicate doing nothing if there was a request to remove a
battery and another to add the battery, what would you suggest?

> Perhaps '&& drvdata->battery' instead of the nested 'if'?

Sure, what about corsair_void_add_battery()? It's got an equivalent
condition inside it, should I leave it there or move it to the
'add_battery && !remove_battery' for consistency?

Thanks for the review,

Stuart