linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] platform/chrome: cros_ec_spi: Transfer messages at high priority

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: <20190403211943.GT112750@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:19:43 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Ryan Case <ryandcase@...omium.org>,
        Randall Spangler <rspangler@...omium.org>,
        Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] platform/chrome: cros_ec_spi: Transfer messages at
 high priority

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:08:40PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:04 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > +static int cros_ec_xfer_high_pri(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> >
> > nit: the fact that a high priority workqueue is used is an
> > implementation detail, since the driver has no function to perform a
> > transfer with 'normal'/low priority there is no need to distinguish
> > between the two cases. In this sense I'd be inclined to remove the
> > 'high_pri' from the function names.
> >
> > Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, I focussed on other
> > details, anyway it's just a nit.
> 
> I still kinda like having the "high_pri" in there since the point of
> this function is to transfer the work onto the high priority
> workqueue.  It's not an exported function so having the implementation
> detail leak into the name isn't a bad thing, is it?

IMO the long name with details mostly irrelevant to the caller (they
want to do a 'normal' transfer, the function should do the right thing
to get that done) is more distracting than helpful. But yeah, this is
definitely 'nit/bikeshed' territory ;-)

> ...so unless someone else thinks the name should change or you feel
> strongly about it I won't plan to change the name.

no strong feelings on my side, just wanted to mention it.