linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Simplify lan9303_xxx_packet

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: <87o9s01xb3.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:43:44 -0400
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:     Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>, andrew@...n.ch,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Simplify lan9303_xxx_packet_processing() usage

Hi Egil,

Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no> writes:

>>> +	for (p = 0; p <= 2; p++) {
>> 
>> Exclusive limits are often prefer, i.e. 'p < 3'.
>> 
> OK, that can be nice when I later introduce LAN9303_NUM_PORTS = 3.

This is indeed another reason what exclusive limits are prefered ;-)

>>> +		int ret;
>>> +
>>> +		ret = lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, p);
>>> +		if (ret)
>>> +			return ret;
>> 
>> When any non-zero return code means an error, we usually see 'err'
>> instead of 'ret'.
>> 
>
> But 'ret' is used throughout the rest of the file. Is it not better to
> be locally consistent?

You are correct, I was missing a bit of context here.

>>>   	case 1:
>>> -		return lan9303_enable_packet_processing(chip, port);
>> 
>> Is this deletion intentional? The commit message does not explain this.
>> 
>> When possible, it is appreciated to separate functional from
>> non-functional changes. For example one commit adding the loop in
>> lan9303_disable_processing and another one to not enable/disable packet
>> processing on port 1.
>> 
>
> Case fall through, the change is purely non-functional.
>
> You are perhaps thinking of the patch in my first series where I removed
> disable of port 0. I have put that on hold. Juergen says that the
> mainline driver works out of the box for him. So I will investigate
> that problem bit more.

Correct! I misread, my bad. This is indeed cleaner with this patch. With
the LAN9303_NUM_PORTS limit and detailed commit message, the patch LGTM.


Thanks,

        Vivien