linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] scpi: Add alternative legacy structures, functions and macros

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:   Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:37:23 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, khilman@...libre.com,
        heiko@...ech.de, wxt@...k-chips.com, frank.wang@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] scpi: Add alternative legacy structures, functions
 and macros



On 19/10/16 11:28, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 01:16 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:

[...]

>>
>> and the above 2 can be moved out of the conditions, no ?
>>
>> if (scpi_info->is_legacy) {
>>     struct legacy_scpi_shared_mem *mem = ch->rx_payload;
>>     len = match->rx_len;
>> } else {
>>     struct scpi_shared_mem *mem = ch->rx_payload;
>>     len = min(match->rx_len, CMD_SIZE(cmd));
>> }
>> match->status = le32_to_cpu(mem->status);
>> memcpy_fromio(match->rx_buf, mem->payload, len);
>>
>> should work.
>
> Well, we will have "error: ‘mem’ undeclared (first use in this
> function)" since mem is not declared outside the if/else.
>
> I don't see good solutions even with an union.

Right, I missed to see that. You can leave it as you had before then.


[...]
>>>>>      if (t->rx_buf) {
>>>>>          if (!(++ch->token))
>>>>>              ++ch->token;
>>>>>          ADD_SCPI_TOKEN(t->cmd, ch->token);
>>>>> +        if (scpi_info->is_legacy)
>>>>> +            t->slot = t->cmd;
>>>>
>>>> I thought passing token was not an issue from your previous response,
>>>> but you are overriding it here, why ?
>>>
>>> Indeed, I can leave it, but it's useless since it won't serve to
>>> distinguish multiple similar commands.
>>>
>>
>> OK, I don't see any point in such micro optimization, so please retain it.
>>
>
> I misread my code, I leaved the token passing, but I copy back the
> cmd  to the slot which is used by the MHU.
> If I remove the "t->slot = t->cmd;", the token won't be passed to the
> FW.
>

Right, sorry I think I misled you :)

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep