netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 02/15] usb: gadget: make config_item

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710200857030.2090@hadrien>
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:02:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Bhumika Goyal <bhumirks@...il.com>,
        julia.lawall@...6.fr, rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jic23@...nel.org,
        knaack.h@....de, lars@...afoo.de, pmeerw@...erw.net,
        dledford@...hat.com, sean.hefty@...el.com,
        hal.rosenstock@...il.com, sagi@...mberg.me, kishon@...com,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, nab@...ux-iscsi.org, balbi@...nel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jlbec@...lplan.org,
        ccaulfie@...hat.com, teigland@...hat.com, mfasheh@...sity.com,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        target-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@...hat.com, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/15] usb: gadget: make config_item_type structures
 const



On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

> Hi Christoph,
>
> On Thursday, 19 October 2017 17:06:57 EEST Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Now we have 9 const instances of the config_item_type structure that are
> > > identical, with only the .ct_owner field set. Should they be all merged
> > > into a single structure ?
> >
> > I think that's a good idea.
> >
> > But I'm about to slurp up this whole series into my tree, how about making
> > that an incremental patch?
>
> I'm fine with that.
>
> Bhumika, would you like to submit an incremental patch, or should I do it ?

For various types, there seem to be a few hundred of these, eg:

static const struct hda_pcm_stream alc269_44k_pcm_analog_playback = {
        .rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_44100, /* fixed rate */
};

static const struct hda_pcm_stream alc269_44k_pcm_analog_capture = {
        .rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_44100, /* fixed rate */
};

Would it be desirable to remove them?  I guess one would have to check
that there are not any pointer equality checks on these values.  Would it
be useful to put a #define to keep the orignal names?

julia