linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the SPI NOR lock/unlock logic

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2da7cf7f-db59-2d0f-e7cb-fcda974031ca@ti.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 16:59:59 +0530
From:   Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
To:     <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>, <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
        <marek.vasut@...il.com>
CC:     <dwmw2@...radead.org>, <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <richard@....at>,
        <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the SPI NOR lock/unlock logic


On 05/08/19 1:30 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
>>
>> On 31-Jul-19 2:33 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com wrote:
>>> From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
>>>
>>> Move the locking hooks in a separate struct so that we have just
>>> one field to update when we change the locking implementation.
>>>
>>> stm_locking_ops, the legacy locking operations, can be overwritten
>>> later on by implementing manufacturer specific default_init() hooks.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
>>> [tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com: use ->default_init() hook]
>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>
>>
>> [...]
[...]
>>>  
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct spi_nor_locking_ops - SPI NOR locking methods
>>> + * @lock: lock a region of the SPI NOR
>>> + * @unlock: unlock a region of the SPI NOR
>>> + * @is_locked: check if a region of the SPI NOR is completely locked
>>> + */
>>> +struct spi_nor_locking_ops {
>>> +	int (*lock)(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
>>> +	int (*unlock)(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
>>> +	int (*is_locked)(struct spi_nor *nor, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
>>
>> checkpatch does not like uint64_t. Please changes these to size_t
> 
> This respects what struct mtd_info is expecting:
> 
>         int (*_lock) (struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
>         int (*_unlock) (struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
>         int (*_is_locked) (struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len);
> 
> I haven't seen the warnings, would you mind pasting them?
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict 6-7-mtd-spi-nor-Rework-the-SPI-NOR-lock-unlock-logic.patch
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 102 lines checked
> 
> 6-7-mtd-spi-nor-Rework-the-SPI-NOR-lock-unlock-logic.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
> 

Hmm, seems to be emitted only for certain type of declarations. Not sure 
whats the pattern here. Warning is something like:

CHECK: Prefer kernel type 'u64' over 'uint64_t'

from: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/scripts/checkpatch.pl#L5906


-- 
Regards
Vignesh