netdev - Re: [net-next 1/9] Implementation of Virtual Bus

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:   Sat, 18 Apr 2020 14:50:51 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        nhorman@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com, jgg@...pe.ca,
        parav@...lanox.com, galpress@...zon.com,
        selvin.xavier@...adcom.com, sriharsha.basavapatna@...adcom.com,
        benve@...co.com, bharat@...lsio.com, xavier.huwei@...wei.com,
        yishaih@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com, mkalderon@...vell.com,
        aditr@...are.com, ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com,
        pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com,
        Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
        Andrew Bowers <andrewx.bowers@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/9] Implementation of Virtual Bus

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:10:26AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +/*
> + * virtual_bus.h - lightweight software bus
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2019-20 Intel Corporation
> + *
> + * Please see Documentation/driver-api/virtual_bus.rst for more information
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _VIRTUAL_BUS_H_
> +#define _VIRTUAL_BUS_H_
> +
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +
> +struct virtbus_device {
> +	struct device dev;
> +	const char *name;

struct device already has a name, why do you need another one?

> +	void (*release)(struct virtbus_device *);

A bus should have the release function, not the actual device itself.  A
device should not need function pointers.

> +	int id;

Shouldn't that be a specific type, like u64 or something?

thanks,

greg k-h