linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] RISC-V: sifive_l2_cache: Add L2 cache controller driver for SiFive SoCs

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: <CAJ2_jOGi3uTX2GhbFC-m7hHkSFAAS_-F7J-L_=3OYKpeexaaQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:04:46 +0530
From:   Yash Shah <yash.shah@...ive.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        mark.rutland@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        Sachin Ghadi <sachin.ghadi@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] RISC-V: sifive_l2_cache: Add L2 cache controller
 driver for SiFive SoCs

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:48 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:24:56AM +0530, Yash Shah wrote:
> > The driver currently supports only SiFive FU540-C000 platform.
> >
> > The initial version of L2 cache controller driver includes:
> > - Initial configuration reporting at boot up.
> > - Support for ECC related functionality.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yash Shah <yash.shah@...ive.com>
>
> [....]
>
> > +static const struct file_operations l2_fops = {
> > +     .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +     .open = simple_open,
> > +     .write = l2_write
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void setup_sifive_debug(void)
> > +{
> > +     sifive_test = debugfs_create_dir("sifive_l2_cache", NULL);
> > +     if (!sifive_test)
>
> Drop the conditional check above, Greg K H removed lots of them recently.
> In his words: When calling debugfs functions, there is no need to ever
> check the return value.  The function can work or not, but the code
> logic should never do something different based on this.
>
> He may not like to see this :)

Sure, thanks for pointing it out. Will drop all the conditional check
in debugfs functions.

>
> > +             return;
> > +
> > +     if (!debugfs_create_file("sifive_debug_inject_error", 0200,
> > +                              sifive_test, NULL, &l2_fops))
>
> Ditto.
>
> > +             debugfs_remove_recursive(sifive_test);
> > +}
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep

Thanks for your comments.

- Yash