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: <ebf3ee33-3958-43a7-8bd9-fe6169ad6a9f@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:56:40 +0100
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Guilherme Giacomo Simoes <trintaeoitogc@...il.com>
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, scott@...teful.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] PCI: cpci: remove unused fields

Le 15/02/2025 à 03:10, Guilherme Giacomo Simoes a écrit :
> 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.

So, if unsure if the change of behavior you introduce is correct, you 
should only do what you wanted to do.

If you still want to propose the other change, you should do the 2 
things in 2 different steps.

CJ

> 
> Thoughts ??
> 
> Thanks,
> Guilherme
> 
>