linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: sm750fb: rename 'proc

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: <2025061927-pushpin-scholar-a898@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:24:26 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Kisub Choe <kisub.choe.0x1@...il.com>
Cc: sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, teddy.wang@...iconmotion.com,
	linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: sm750fb: rename 'proc_setBLANK'

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 10:12:13PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 04:26:10PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:15:55PM +0900, Kisub Choe wrote:
> > > Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_setBLANK' to
> > 
> > That doesn't rename anything :(
> Rename 'proc_setBLANK' to 'proc_set_blank' to
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > conform with kernel style guidelines as reported by checkpatch.pl
> > > 
> > > CHECK: Avoid CamelCase: <proc_setBLANK>
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kisub Choe <kisub.choe.0x1@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
> > >  drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.h | 2 +-
> > >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
> > > index 1d929aca399c..bb2ade6030c2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
> > > @@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ static int lynxfb_ops_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
> > >  	pr_debug("blank = %d.\n", blank);
> > >  	par = info->par;
> > >  	output = &par->output;
> > > -	return output->proc_setBLANK(output, blank);
> > > +	return output->proc_set_blank(output, blank);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
> > > @@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ static int sm750fb_set_drv(struct lynxfb_par *par)
> > >  	crtc->ypanstep = 1;
> > >  	crtc->ywrapstep = 0;
> > >  
> > > -	output->proc_setBLANK = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
> > > +	output->proc_set_blank = (sm750_dev->revid == SM750LE_REVISION_ID) ?
> > >  				 hw_sm750le_set_blank : hw_sm750_set_blank;
> > 
> > Why do we even need this function pointer?  Why not just do the check
> > above when it is called instead of this indirection?
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> Dear Greg,
> 
> Here is the updated patch with revised commit message. No code changes.

Please read the documentation for how to send an updated patch (hint, it
needs to be a new version).

Also, see my comments above about what you should do here instead of
just renaming the variable.  Please make that change which will remove
the variable entirely.

thanks,

greg k-h