netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/10] drivers: base: Add device_find_in_class

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]

Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2017 02:07:24 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Marvell Dove/MV78xx0/Orion SOC support" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/10] drivers: base: Add device_find_in_class_name()

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 04:00 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/17/2017 03:34 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:

>> But why not to use void *class_name to be consistent with callback and
>> device_find_child()?
>
> The top-level function: device_find_in_class_name() should have a
> stronger typing of its argument even if it internally uses
> device_find_child() and a callback that takes a void * argument, that's
> how I see it.

Fair enough.

>> Btw,
>> return get_device(parent);
>
> Not sure I follow what that means here?

Missed remark. Instead of

get_device(parent);
return parent;

you can use

return get_device(parent);

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko