linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] platform/x86: Add Lenovo WMI Gamezone Driver

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: <855BB61E-C9F4-4D1A-8A09-260DAD61E2CD@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 03:10:36 -0700
From: "Derek J. Clark" <derekjohn.clark@...il.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: ALOK TIWARI <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
 Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Mario Limonciello <superm1@...nel.org>, Luke Jones <luke@...nes.dev>,
 Xino Ni <nijs1@...ovo.com>, Zhixin Zhang <zhangzx36@...ovo.com>,
 Mia Shao <shaohz1@...ovo.com>, Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>,
 "Pierre-Loup A . Griffais" <pgriffais@...vesoftware.com>,
 "Cody T . -H . Chiu" <codyit@...il.com>, John Martens <johnfanv2@...il.com>,
 platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] platform/x86: Add Lenovo WMI Gamezone Driver

On April 30, 2025 12:58:35 AM PDT, "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2025, Derek J. Clark wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>> On April 28, 2025 9:39:55 PM PDT, ALOK TIWARI <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >On 28-04-2025 06:48, Derek J. Clark wrote:
>> >> + * Determine if the extreme thermal mode is supported by the hardware.
>> >> + * Anything version 5 or lower does not. For devices wuth a version 6 or
>> >
>> >typo wuth
>> >
>> >> + * greater do a DMI check, as some devices report a version that supports
>> >> + * extreme mode but have an incomplete entry in the BIOS. To ensure this
>> >> + * cannot be set, quirk them to prevent assignment.
>> >> + *
>> >> + * Return: int.
>> >
>> >The function returns int.
>> >But logically it's returning boolean false, true
>> 
>> I may have overdone it by removing all bools after the v5 review as I 
>> interpreted Ilpo's comment to mean I shouldn't return any bool c types. 
>> I'll wait for them to weigh in before changing this back.
>
>Hi Derek,
>
>That is certainly a misinterpretation.
>
>It's perfectly fine to return bool from a function. If there's no good 
>reason e.g. because of some API that requires int return, booleans should 
>be returned as bool.
>
>I was trying to say your kerneldoc said "Return: bool" for a function that 
>returns int. Both "bool" and "int" are C types so there was a contradition 
>in that, which is what I tried to point out. Please write "boolean" if you 
>refer to a boolean which is not "bool" typed (but consider what was said 
>above and if the type too can be changed to bool in that case).
>

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
- Derek