netdev - Re: [PATCH] [Rev2] MPC5121 FEC 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, 17 Jun 2008 21:46:20 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
Cc:	John Rigby <jrigby@...escale.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	jeff@...zik.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [Rev2] MPC5121 FEC support

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 02:31:31PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >>+	data = of_get_property(ofdev->node, "fsl,align-tx-packets", &len);
> >>+	if (data && len == 4)
> >>+		fpi->align_tx_packets = *data;
> >>+
> >Where did "4" come from. USe a define with a desriptive name.
> 
> It's sizeof(u32), i.e. one device tree cell.  This is fairly normal.
Not fpr me at least - but I just review the patch out of context.
If it is sizeof(u32) why not write so?

> 
> >> 	fpi->rx_ring = 32;
> >> 	fpi->tx_ring = 32;
> >Same for "32"
> >> 	fpi->rx_copybreak = 240;
> >Same for "240".
> 
> They're arbitrary tuning parameters.  How is a #define any more 
> descriptive than the field name?
So it is clear they are tuneing parameters.


> 
> Besides, that's pre-existing, and has nothing to do with this patch.
>
OK.
 
> >>--- a/drivers/net/fs_enet/fs_enet.h
> >>+++ b/drivers/net/fs_enet/fs_enet.h
> >>@@ -10,12 +10,17 @@
> >> 
> >> #include <linux/fs_enet_pd.h>
> >> #include <asm/fs_pd.h>
> >>+#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_MPC5121_FEC
> >>+#include "fec_mpc5121.h"
> >>+#endif
> >
> >Which is this include ifdeffed - looks like some wrong concept.
> 
> This has already been discussed.  There are two similar but different 
> ethernet controllers that are being targeted, and the chips they are a 
> part of (8xx and 512x) are already mutually exclusive with respect to 
> multiplatform kernels due to core differences.
OK - had not seen it (or forgot).

> 
> >The amount of ifdef introduced looks bad..
> 
> Yes, it's bad -- but it's a matter of which is the lesser evil, a few 
> ifdefs or large amounts of mostly duplicated code.
> 
> >And try to run the patch through scripts/checkpatch.pl
> >And try to split it up a bit.
> 
> Other than the fec_t thing, I don't see any needed splitting...
It was only the fec_t => struct fec change I had in mind.

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html