linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] gpio: sysfs: rename the data variable in gpiod

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=Me9QX8OWwFcTHQjXgDKiu_90gaLGeQp600aSSJi0yzbYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:57:44 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, 
	Jan Lübbe <jlu@...gutronix.de>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>, 
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, 
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] gpio: sysfs: rename the data variable in gpiod_(un)export()

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 5:43 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:59:53AM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > In preparation for future commits which will make use of descriptor AND
> > GPIO-device data in the same functions rename the former from data to
> > desc_data separately which will make future changes smaller and easier
> > to read.
>
> ...
>
> > +     attrs = desc_data->attrs;
> > +     desc_data->attr_group.is_visible = gpio_is_visible;
> > +     attrs[GPIO_SYSFS_LINE_ATTR_DIRECTION] = &desc_data->dir_attr.attr;
> > +     attrs[GPIO_SYSFS_LINE_ATTR_VALUE] = &desc_data->val_attr.attr;
> > +     attrs[GPIO_SYSFS_LINE_ATTR_EDGE] = &desc_data->edge_attr.attr;
> >       attrs[GPIO_SYSFS_LINE_ATTR_ACTIVE_LOW] =
> > -                                             &data->active_low_attr.attr;
> > +                             &desc_data->active_low_attr.attr;
>
> These were added in the previous patch and immediately got rewritten?!
> Sounds like a wrong patch order.
>

Yeah, bad rebase. Thanks for catching it.

Bart