linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/20] ata_piix: add EFAR SLC90E66 support

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:	Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:01:45 +0100
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] ata_piix: add EFAR SLC90E66 support

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> such optimizations because maintenance cost > potential savings (i.e.
>> making SCSI quirks optional, I have draft patch for this, itself cuts
>> like 10k).
>
> Interesting in itself but irrelevant because the current situation is
> that a piix change cannot break oldpiix, efar, it8213, radisys etc and
> vice versa. Particuarly important when the other chips are not common so
> test coverage is difficult, and that far outweighs the maintenance
> savings for other things, especially as this is code that just doesn't
> change.
>
>>
>> > It also leads to hideous uglies in the main code paths like this :
>> >
>> > +       unsigned int has_sitre  = (dev->vendor != 0x8086 ||
>> > +                                  dev->device != 0x1230);
>> >
>> > which also has exactly zero comments.
>>
>> has_sitre variable name is documentation in itself for anyone knowing
>> the hardware or has read a chipset/code documentation.
>
> And naturally anyone randomly glancing at the code knows why it's
> checking 0x8086 & 0x1230, and why the radisys check interacts with it.
>
> Bartlomiej - those are a mess, a complete and total mess. It doesn't
> necessarily argue against folding them together, but at least do a clean
> job of it.

I beg to differ regardless "the mess" comment but well, you can always
take my work and "add value" to it like in 2009 (when somehow you miss
that your pata_rdc also needs locking fixes but you were more
concerned with little differences between my work and your
"dreamwork"..)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/