netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] Driver core: reduce duplicated code

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: <20100621213846.GB25511@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:38:46 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...l.ru>,
	Anisse Astier <anisse@...ier.eu>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Magnus Damm <damm@...nsource.se>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] Driver core: reduce duplicated code

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> This makes the two similar functions platform_device_register_simple
> and platform_device_register_data one line inline functions using a new
> generic function platform_device_register_resndata.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> ---
> Hello,
> 
> still unsolved is the naming issue, what do you think about
> platform_device_register?

We already have a platform_device_register() function :)

> I marked the new function as __init_or_module in a separate patch to
> make reverting it a bit easier, still I think it should be possible to
> fix the caller if a problem occurs.
> 
> I changed the semantic slightly to only call
> platform_device_add_resources if data != NULL instead of size != 0.  The
> idea is to support wrappers like:
> 
> 	#define add_blablub(id, pdata) \
> 		platform_device_register_resndata(NULL, "blablub", id, \
> 			NULL, 0, pdata, sizeof(struct blablub_platform_data))
> 
> that don't fail if pdata=NULL.  Ditto for res.

That's fine, but why would you want to have a #define for something like
this?  Is it really needed?

Anyway, this version looks fine to me, I'll go apply it.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html