linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/14] dmaengine: ti: Add cppi5 header for UDMA

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: <8486fbb1-9d2c-9230-6205-85d58b93697c@ti.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:06:58 +0300
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:     Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
CC:     <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <nm@...com>, <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <lokeshvutla@...com>, <t-kristo@...com>, <tony@...mide.com>,
        <j-keerthy@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/14] dmaengine: ti: Add cppi5 header for UDMA



On 09/09/2019 13:59, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/09/2019 17.25, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On 30-07-19, 12:34, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * Descriptor header, present in all types of descriptors
>>> + */
>>> +struct cppi5_desc_hdr_t {
>>> +	u32 pkt_info0;	/* Packet info word 0 (n/a in Buffer desc) */
>>> +	u32 pkt_info1;	/* Packet info word 1 (n/a in Buffer desc) */
>>> +	u32 pkt_info2;	/* Packet info word 2 Buffer reclamation info */
>>> +	u32 src_dst_tag; /* Packet info word 3 (n/a in Buffer desc) */
>>
>> Can we move these comments to kernel-doc style please
> 
> Sure, I'll move all struct and enums.
> 
>>> +/**
>>> + * cppi5_desc_get_type - get descriptor type
>>> + * @desc_hdr: packet descriptor/TR header
>>> + *
>>> + * Returns descriptor type:
>>> + * CPPI5_INFO0_DESC_TYPE_VAL_HOST
>>> + * CPPI5_INFO0_DESC_TYPE_VAL_MONO
>>> + * CPPI5_INFO0_DESC_TYPE_VAL_TR
>>> + */
>>> +static inline u32 cppi5_desc_get_type(struct cppi5_desc_hdr_t *desc_hdr)
>>> +{
>>> +	WARN_ON(!desc_hdr);
>>
>> why WARN_ON and not return error!
> 
> these helpers were intended to be as simple as possible.
> I can go through with all of the WARN_ONs and replace them with if()
> pr_warn() and either just return or return with 0.
> 
> Would that be acceptable?
> 

This should never happens in working system unless there is buggy code.
I think It can be just removed

-- 
Best regards,
grygorii