linux-kernel - Re: [v3, PATCH] net: stmmac: add support for hash table size 128/256 in dwmac4

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: <1559008369.24897.66.camel@mhfsdcap03>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 09:52:49 +0800
From:   biao huang <biao.huang@...iatek.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <joabreu@...opsys.com>, <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        <alexandre.torgue@...com>, <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>, <yt.shen@...iatek.com>,
        <jianguo.zhang@...iatek.com>, <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [v3, PATCH] net: stmmac: add support for hash table size
 128/256 in dwmac4

Dear David,

On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 10:08 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Biao Huang <biao.huang@...iatek.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 11:14:27 +0800
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c
> > index 5e98da4..029a3db 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c
> > @@ -403,41 +403,50 @@ static void dwmac4_set_filter(struct mac_device_info *hw,
> >  			      struct net_device *dev)
> >  {
> >  	void __iomem *ioaddr = (void __iomem *)dev->base_addr;
> > -	unsigned int value = 0;
> > +	unsigned int value;
> > +	int numhashregs = (hw->multicast_filter_bins >> 5);
> > +	int mcbitslog2 = hw->mcast_bits_log2;
> > +	int i;
> 
> Please retain the reverse christmas tree ordering here.
I'm a little confused about the reverse xmas tree ordering.

should I reorder them only according to the total length like this:

	void __iomem *ioaddr = (void __iomem *)dev->base_addr;
	int numhashregs = (hw->multicast_filter_bins >> 5);
	int mcbitslog2 = hw->mcast_bits_log2;
	unsigned int value;
	int i;

or should I gather the same type together, and order types as reverse
xmas tree, then order the same type definitions as reverse xmas tree,
like this:

	void __iomem *ioaddr = (void __iomem *)dev->base_addr;
	unsigned int value;
	int numhashregs = (hw->multicast_filter_bins >> 5);
	int mcbitslog2 = hw->mcast_bits_log2;
	int i;

Thank you.
> 
> Thank you.