linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] PCI: Recognize Thunderbolt devices

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 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:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:42:50 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] PCI: Recognize Thunderbolt devices

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 01:26:16AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 03:52:08PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 09:03:45PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:

> > > +static void set_pcie_vendor_specific(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > 
> > This is very specific to Thunderbolt, so let's name it something that
> > conveys that information.  The fact that we use a vendor-specific
> > capability to figure it out isn't really relevant in the caller.
> 
> I thought that we may have the necessity in the future to parse other
> VSECs on device probe, so I gave the function this generic name.
> 
> Think about it, every VSEC that needs to be parsed needs the while loop
> below.  It's more efficient to have only a single while loop that handles
> *all* VSECs at once.
> 
> If someone needs to parse another VSEC, they just add it to this function.
> So IMO the way I've solved it is preferable to just adding a Thunderbolt-
> specific function.
> 
> Are you sure you want this renamed? (y/n)

Sorry for the delay; I missed this question.  If this has already been
merged somewhere as-is, that's fine.  If you repost it for any reason,
I would prefer to rename it so it reflects the functionality rather
than the source of the information.  This isn't a performance path, so
readability is more important than optimization.

Bjorn