Hi Benjamin,
On 9 May 2016 at 16:07, Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This module is allow testing secure calls of SMAF.
>
"Add fake secure module" does sound like something not (m)any people
want to hear ;-)
Have you considered calling it 'dummy', 'test' or similar ?
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/smaf/smaf-fakesecure.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
> +/*
> + * smaf-fakesecure.c
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) Linaro SA 2015
> + * Author: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx> for Linaro.
> + * License terms: GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2
> + */
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/smaf-secure.h>
> +
> +#define MAGIC 0xDEADBEEF
> +
> +struct fake_private {
> + int magic;
> +};
> +
> +static void *smaf_fakesecure_create(void)
> +{
> + struct fake_private *priv;
> +
> + priv = kzalloc(sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
Missing ENOMEM handling ?
> + priv->magic = MAGIC;
> +
> + return priv;
> +}
> +
> +static int smaf_fakesecure_destroy(void *ctx)
> +{
> + struct fake_private *priv = (struct fake_private *)ctx;
You might want to flesh this cast into a (inline) helper and use it throughout ?
... and that is all. Hope these were useful, or at the very least not
utterly wrong, suggestions :-)
Regards,
Emil
P.S. From a quick look userspace has some subtle bugs/odd practises.
Let me know if you're interested in my input.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
