linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] PCI: cpci: remove unused fields

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: <20250215021054.222787-1-trintaeoitogc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 23:10:54 -0300
From: Guilherme Giacomo Simoes <trintaeoitogc@...il.com>
To: christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	scott@...teful.org,
	trintaeoitogc@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] PCI: cpci: remove unused fields

Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> If neither get_power nor set_power where defined in any driver, then 
> cpci_get_power_status() was always returning 1.
> 
> IIUC, now it may return 1 or 0 depending of if enable_slot() or 
> disable_slot() have been called.
You is right... ever return 1, but, this is a expected behavior?
Don't seems for me, that ever return 1 is the right way.

> I don't know the impact of this change and I dont know if it is correct, 
> but I think you should explain why this change of behavior is fine.
I submitt this patch only with intention that save resources removing the
get_power and set_power pointers and yours calls.

Thoughts ?? 

Thanks,
Guilherme