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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <be53eff275623c55263a2e9b123cd77d453e8778.camel@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 15:47:13 +0200 From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phylink: constify fwnode arguments On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 12:32 +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 01:29:50PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 12:03 +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/linux/phylink.h b/include/linux/phylink.h > > > index 71755c66c162..02c777ad18f2 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/phylink.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/phylink.h > > > @@ -568,7 +568,8 @@ void phylink_generic_validate(struct phylink_config *config, > > > unsigned long *supported, > > > struct phylink_link_state *state); > > > > > > -struct phylink *phylink_create(struct phylink_config *, struct fwnode_handle *, > > > +struct phylink *phylink_create(struct phylink_config *, > > > + const struct fwnode_handle *, > > > > While touching the above, could you please also add the missing params > > name, to keep checkpatch happy and be consistent with the others > > arguments? > > For interest, when did naming parameters in a prototype become a > requirement? I would not call it a general requirement, but in this specific case we have 2 named params and 2 unnamed ones for the same function, which looks not good to me. Since you are touching that function definition and checkpatch is complaining about the above, I think it would be better to make the function declaration self-consistent. Looking again at the checkpatch warning, that is possibly a false positive - git history hints such check should apply only to function definition, not declaration. I still think it would be better removing the mixed unnamed/named params usage. Thanks, Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists