linux-kernel - Re: [05/12] watchdog: sp5100_tco: Clean up sp5100_tco

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, 16 Jan 2018 12:22:46 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
Cc:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Zoltán Böszörményi <zboszor@...hu>
Subject: Re: [05/12] watchdog: sp5100_tco: Clean up sp5100_tco_setupdevice

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 02:55:57PM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote:
> Thank you for this cleanup, the gotos that were in this code are really
> confusing to read through! I'd recommend one very small change described
> below. Assuming you add that in the next version:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
> 
> On Sun, 2017-12-24 at 13:04 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > There are too many unnecessary goto statements in sp5100_tco_setupdevice().
> > Rearrange the code and limit goto statements to error handling.
> > 
> > Cc: Zoltán Böszörményi <zboszor@...hu>
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > ---
> >  drivers/watchdog/sp5100_tco.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > -----
> >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/sp5100_tco.c b/drivers/watchdog/sp5100_tco.c
> > index 0e816f2cdb07..5a13ab483c50 100644
> > --- a/drivers/watchdog/sp5100_tco.c
> > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/sp5100_tco.c
> > @@ -396,48 +396,44 @@ static int sp5100_tco_setupdevice(void)
> >  	pr_debug("Got 0x%04x from indirect I/O\n", val);
> >  
> >  	/* Check MMIO address conflict */
> > -	if (request_mem_region_exclusive(val, SP5100_WDT_MEM_MAP_SIZE,
> > -								dev_name))
> > -		goto setup_wdt;
> > -	else
> > +	if (!request_mem_region_exclusive(val, SP5100_WDT_MEM_MAP_SIZE,
> > +					  dev_name)) {
> >  		pr_debug("MMIO address 0x%04x already in use\n", val);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Secondly, Find the watchdog timer MMIO address
> > +		 * from SBResource_MMIO register.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (tco_has_sp5100_reg_layout(sp5100_tco_pci)) {
> > +			/* Read SBResource_MMIO from PCI config(PCI_Reg:
> > 9Ch) */
> > +			pci_read_config_dword(sp5100_tco_pci,
> > +					      SP5100_SB_RESOURCE_MMIO_BASE,
> > +					      &val);
> > +		} else {
> > +			/* Read SBResource_MMIO from AcpiMmioEn(PM_Reg:
> > 24h) */
> > +			val =
> > sp5100_tco_read_pm_reg32(SB800_PM_ACPI_MMIO_EN);
> > +		}
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Secondly, Find the watchdog timer MMIO address
> > -	 * from SBResource_MMIO register.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (tco_has_sp5100_reg_layout(sp5100_tco_pci)) {
> > -		/* Read SBResource_MMIO from PCI config(PCI_Reg: 9Ch) */
> > -		pci_read_config_dword(sp5100_tco_pci,
> > -				      SP5100_SB_RESOURCE_MMIO_BASE, &val);
> > -	} else {
> > -		/* Read SBResource_MMIO from AcpiMmioEn(PM_Reg: 24h) */
> > -		val = sp5100_tco_read_pm_reg32(SB800_PM_ACPI_MMIO_EN);
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	/* The SBResource_MMIO is enabled and mapped memory space? */
> > -	if ((val & (SB800_ACPI_MMIO_DECODE_EN | SB800_ACPI_MMIO_SEL)) ==
> > +		/* The SBResource_MMIO is enabled and mapped memory space?
> > */
> > +		if ((val & (SB800_ACPI_MMIO_DECODE_EN |
> > SB800_ACPI_MMIO_SEL)) !=
> >  						  SB800_ACPI_MMIO_DECODE_EN
> Re-align this line since you're changing the code around here anyway
> 

This code is changed again in a later patch, and I don't see anything wrong
with the final alignment. Can you look at the final code and let me know what
alignment you would like to have changed there ?

Thanks,
Guenter