linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] add pci_{request,free}

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]

Message-ID: <20061005143607.GH352@slug>
Date:	Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:36:07 +0000
From:	Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@...e.fr>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...radead.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, akpm@...l.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
	gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] add pci_{request,free}_irq take #3

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:59:24PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:26:33PM +0000, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 02:33:11PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 08:29:38PM +0000, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> > > > I see. Just to be sure that I got the matter right, does the issue boils
> > > > down to a choice between:
> > >
> > > woah, woah, woah, you're getting yourself confused here.
> > yep :), I clearly missed the point you made there:
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/3/404
> > I've re-read it, hope I've got it right this time.
> > >
> > > You're looking at what the architectures do here.  We're not concerned
> > > with that, we're concerned with what the device drivers do with whatever
> > > value the architecture has stuck in pdev->irq.
> > Not sure I get it still though. Is the issue more than just the location
> > of the irq validation code? If yes, could you explain what are the
> > differences between your proposal and Jeff's ?
> >
> > Anyway, let me have another try at summing up the issue:
> >
> > #1
> > - generic irq validation code in include/linux/pci.h
> > - arch specific irq validation code in include/asm/pci.h
> > - is_irq_valid() called by pci_request_irq()
> 
> s/is_irq_valid/valid_irq/g methinks.
The point of the is_ prefix is to make it clear that we're returning 1
if it's true and 0 if it's false. 
<checks thread on return values>
err... you said[1]:
> There are at least 3 idioms:
> [...]
> 2) return 1 on YES, 0 on NO.
> [...]
> #2 should only be used if condition in question is spelled nice:
Which I thought made sense, and that's why the is_ prefix is there now.
Am I missing something?

Regards,
Frederik
[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/18/399
-
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/