linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] i2c: aspeed: added driver for Aspeed I2C

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:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:00:44 -0700
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
        Kachalov Anton <mouse@...c.ru>,
        Cédric Le Goater <clg@...d.org>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/5] i2c: aspeed: added driver for Aspeed I2C

Adding Ryan to thread.

>> +static int __aspeed_i2c_init_clk(struct aspeed_i2c_bus *bus,
>> +                                struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>
> Minor nit ... I'm really not fan of those underscores.
>
> We use __ functions in some cases in the kernel for low level
> helpers, usually when it's a low level variant of an existing
> function or an "unlocked" variant, but I don't think generalizing
> it to pretty much everything in the driver is worthwhile here.
>
> If you want to be explicit about locking, I would suggest you
> use a comment in front of the function explaining if it
> expects to be called with the lock held.
>
> We tend to only do that when *both* functions exist and one is
> implemented in term of the other.

Okay, I guess that makes sense. Sorry, I thought the "unlocked"
variant might refer to a function that you have to pay close attention
to the context in which it is called; with as many functions as I have
that require the lock to be held, I would like there to be some way to
say the function is "unsafe," but I guess if there is no convention to
do that, then there is no convention to do that.