linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Initial support for Allwinner's Security ID fuses

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:	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:43:19 +0200
From:	Oliver Schinagl <oliver+list@...inagl.nl>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:	maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Initial support for Allwinner's Security ID fuses

On 06/06/13 21:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

Thank you andy for your review, I do have a few questions/comments if 
you don't mind.
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Oliver Schinagl <oliver+list@...inagl.nl> wrote:
>> From: Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
<snip>
>> +       if (likely((SID_SIZE))) {
>
> Extra braces.
> Use antipattern here.

While I accidentally dropped the pointer here, sorry for the confusion, 
what is antipattern? I have asked around and nobody really knew.

Wikipedia mentions it as a software development thing, but you make it 
sound like it is some sort of tool?

<snip>
>> +       if (unlikely(!pdev->dev.of_node)) {
>> +               dev_err(dev, "No devicetree data available\n");
>> +               ret = -EFAULT;
>> +               goto exit;
>
> Plain return here and in entire function where it applies.
Why? I know there's conflicting preferences here. The general consensus 
seems, don't return mid function if you don't absolutely have to. Yet, 
you make it sound, just return wherever. I take it that really is just a 
preference? I think i see both constructs throughout the kernel. So one 
review prefers the one method, the next the other?
<snip>
>> +
>> +       ret = device_create_bin_file(dev, &sid_bin_attr);
>> +       if (unlikely(ret)) {
>
> Any benifit of (un)likely in probe()?
Does it hurt however in any way though? It's just a compiler 
optimization isn't it.

<snip>
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
Thank you for your time, it is much appreciated :)

Oliver
--
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/