linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc

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:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:05:22 +0200
From:   Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
To:     Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     linux@...f-Entwicklungen.de, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc_enabled into
 two functions

Am 06.12.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Simon Sandström:
> Splits rf69_set_crc_enabled(dev, enabled) into
> rf69_enable_crc(dev) and rf69_disable_crc(dev).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>   drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c     | 18 ++++++------------
>   drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.h     |  4 ++--
>   3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
> index 2ae19ac565d1..614eec7dd904 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
> @@ -216,7 +216,16 @@ rf69_set_rx_cfg(struct pi433_device *dev, struct pi433_rx_cfg *rx_cfg)
>   			return ret;
>   	}
>   	SET_CHECKED(rf69_set_adressFiltering(dev->spi, rx_cfg->enable_address_filtering));
> -	SET_CHECKED(rf69_set_crc_enable	    (dev->spi, rx_cfg->enable_crc));
> +
> +	if (rx_cfg->enable_crc == OPTION_ON) {
> +		ret = rf69_enable_crc(dev->spi);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;
> +	} else {
> +		ret = rf69_disable_crc(dev->spi);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;
> +	}

Why don't you use SET_CHECKED(...)?

I stil don't like this kind of changes - and not using SET_CHECKED makes 
it even worse, since that further increases code length.

The idea was to have the configuration as compact, as you can see in the 
receiver config section. It's a pitty that the packet config already 
needs such a huge number of exceptions due to technical reasons. We 
shouldn't further extend the numbers of exceptions and shouldn't extend 
the number of lines for setting a reg.

Initially this function was just like
set_rx_cfg()
{
     SET_CHECKED(...)
     SET_CHECKED(...)
     SET_CHECKED(...)
     SET_CHECKED(...)
}

It should be easy,
* to survey, which chip settings are touched, if set_rx_cfg is called.
* to survey, that all params of the rx_cfg struct are taken care of.

The longer the function gets, the harder it is, to service it.
I really would be happy, if we don't go this way.

Anyway, please keep the naming convention of rf69.c:

rf69 -set/get - action
-> rf69_set_crc_enable

Thanks,

Marcus