netdev - Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH v3] add the driver for Analog Devices Blackfin on-chip CAN controllers

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:	Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:04:08 -0500
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
Cc:	Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	"H.J. Oertel" <oe@...t.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH v3] add the driver for Analog Devices 
	Blackfin on-chip CAN controllers

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 05:55, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 05:20, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 04:11, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>>>> Barry Song wrote:
>>>>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>>>> I think you don't need "types.h" as the code no longer uses "uint*_t".
>>>> linux/types.h declares all types, like u* which this driver still uses
>>> I just remember that "linux/types.h" needs to be added for the uint*_t
>>> types. At a first glance I do not see __u8/u8 being defined in that
>>> header file but I might have missed something.
>>
>> you need to follow the include paths
>
> I thought I did. Could you point me to the relevant location?

make kernel/printk.i
sed -n -e '/^#/p' -e '/ u64;/{p;q}' kernel/printk.i
linux/types.h -> asm/types.h -> asm-generic/types.h -> asm-generic/int-ll64.h

>>>>> Well, I'm still not a friend of the following inline functions,
>>>>> especially the *one-liners* which are called just *once*. With the usage
>>>>> of structs they seem even more useless.
>>>> seems like it would make more sense to not even use the read/write
>>>> functions either.  just declare the regs as volatile and assign/read
>>>> the struct directly.
>>> Two times no. Don't use volatile and proper accessor functions. See:
>>>
>>> http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.32/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
>>
>> too bad the document is largely irrelevant (all but one paragraph)
>> because this is how volatiles were designed in the first place --
>> hardware I/O registers.  the CAN implementation here is Blackfin
>> specific and not going to be use elsewhere, so other architectures are
>> irrelevant.  the resulting C code would certainly look a hell of a lot
>> more natural without the useless I/O accessor functions, and be much
>> tighter.
>
> Well, so far *no* volatiles have been used in the BFIN CAN driver. But
> if you tell me that they are really required for blackfin... I can't
> really judge.

i'm not saying they're needed all the time, i'm saying volatile
produces more natural coding style than I/O accessors.  but after
reviewing the bfin_read/bfin_write functions, we still need to use
those to workaround a simple anomaly on older parts.
-mike
--
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