linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/21] ARCNET: Defibrillation

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: <1430365765.2575.5.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:49:25 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Michael Grzeschik <mgr@...gutronix.de>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mkl@...gutronix.de,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] ARCNET: Defibrillation

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 16:57 +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:58:53PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
> > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 23:14:41 +0200
> > 
> > > On 04/24/2015 08:47 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 19:20 +0200, Michael Grzeschik wrote:
> > >>> Hi!
> > >> 
> > >> Hello.
> > >> 
> > >>> This patch series tries to reanimate the ARCNET hardware layer to be
> > >>> somehow readable and maintainable again. It includes a lot of cleanup
> > >>> patches. It also adds some fixes which leads the layer to become usable
> > >>> again. And as a special treatment it adds more features like correct
> > >>> loading and unloading of the com20020 card.
> > >> 
> > >> Wow.  Good for you, but why?  Does anyone still use these?
> > > 
> > > Yes, there are parts of the industry where "old" machines are
> > > retrofitted with new hardware...and a lot of these machines still talk
> > > ARCNET :)
> > 
> > But the real issue is, this layer is development wise in the same
> > category as the IDE layer.
> > 
> > Any non-trivial change is nothing but pure risk, especially given the
> > low level of test coverage the code gets.
> 
> Do you count coding style patches as non-trivial or trivial
> patches?
> 
> > So I really only want to see the most critical obvious bug fixes
> > submitted for this layer and drivers.
> 
> The cleanup changes I submitted should not change the actual behaviour.
> Replacing the register access macros with their equivalent outb/inb
> seems pretty obvious. What is your opinion on those?
> 
> I see that the "ARCNET: whitespace, tab and codingstyle fixes" patch is
> pretty mixed up and not very reliable. But Joe has sent me a nice series
> for the cleanup.
> 
> > And no I will not accept an argument stating that you have to
> > restructure and clean this code up in order to fix the bugs.  That's
> > bogus.
> 
> OK.
> 
> I have the following patches in this series which fix bugs found during
> my development:
> 
> com20020-pci: add dev_port for udev handling
> ARCNET: fix hard_header_len limit
> ARCNET: com20020: add enable and disable device on open/close
> 
> I would send a new series containing only those patches with more
> detailed patch descriptions, if that's fine with you?

I was away for a few days and while out I did another
restructuring of all the inb/outb/readb/writeb code
removing all the A<FOO> macros.  It removes all the
dependencies on ioaddr and names all the offsets with
new defines.

I could post if you like.

I think it's a lot cleaner and easier to read.


--
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/