linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] regmap: redefined regmap_read_poll

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: <20200420133023.GB8103@nuc8i5>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 21:30:23 +0800
From:   Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@...il.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] regmap: redefined regmap_read_poll_timeout to
 simplify code

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 07:09:14PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > use read_poll_timeout macro to redefined regmap_read_poll_timeout
> > and also remove the duplicate code.
> 
> How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
> 
>    Subject:
>    [PATCH 1/2] regmap: Simplify implementation of the regmap_read_poll_timeout() macro
> 
>    Change description:
>    Simplify the implementation of the macro “regmap_read_poll_timeout”
>    by using the macro “read_poll_timeout”.
>
Good, I will send the patch v2.
> 
> …
> > +++ b/include/linux/regmap.h
> …
> > @@ -122,26 +123,10 @@ struct reg_sequence {
> >   */
> >  #define regmap_read_poll_timeout(map, addr, val, cond, sleep_us, timeout_us) \
> >  ({ \
> …
> > +	int __ret, __tmp; \
> > +	__tmp = read_poll_timeout(regmap_read, __ret, __ret || (cond), \
> > +			sleep_us, timeout_us, false, (map), (addr), &(val)); \
> > +	__ret ?: __tmp; \
> >  })
> 
> * Can this macro work also with variable names which do not contain
>   double underscores?
>
Yes, this is to avoid using the same variable with its caller.

> * Can the tag “Fixes” be relevant for such an adjustment?
>
I think It is not relevant and we don't need add it.

BR,
Dejin

> Regards,
> Markus