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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:04:52 -0800 From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...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 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: > >>>> +static int device_class_name_match(struct device *dev, void *class) >>> >>> And why not const char *class? >> >> This was raised back in v2, and the same response applies: >> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg147559.html >> >> Changing the signature of a callback is out of the scope of this patch >> series. > > Ah, right. > > 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. > > Btw, > > return get_device(parent); Not sure I follow what that means here? -- Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists