linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC

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: <20170112100046.GB1477@katana>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:00:46 +0100
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC


> > > +       unsigned short piix4_smba = adapdata->smba;
> > >         u8 smba_en_lo;
> > >         u8 port;
> > >         int retval;
> > > +       int timeout = 0;
> > > +       int smbslvcnt;
> > 
> > Keep them just after your another added variable.
> 
> FWIW, I don't think this makes sense as a general rule. I'd rather have
> the variables in an order which makes sense (for human readers or for
> stack size optimization - unless gcc does it for us?), rather than
> always adding at the same place. Is there a rationale for doing that? I
> don't think shrinking the patch size is good enough a reason.

Not really. Some say "Reorder to save bytes", some say "reorder to
utilize cache lines most". Unless I get some numbers showing the desired
effect, I go for "most readable" approach which is subjective, of
course. I'd be totally fine with the above.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)