linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] EDAC: al-mc-edac: Introduce Amazon's Annapurna Labs Memory Controller EDAC

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200504183716.GJ15046@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 4 May 2020 20:37:16 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Shenhar, Talel" <talel@...zon.com>
Cc:     mchehab@...nel.org, james.morse@....com, davem@...emloft.net,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, dwmw@...zon.co.uk,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, hhhawa@...zon.com, ronenk@...zon.com,
        jonnyc@...zon.com, hanochu@...zon.com, eitan@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] EDAC: al-mc-edac: Introduce Amazon's Annapurna
 Labs Memory Controller EDAC

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 01:16:10PM +0300, Shenhar, Talel wrote:
> > > +     mci = edac_mc_alloc(0, ARRAY_SIZE(layers), layers,
> > > +                         sizeof(struct al_mc_edac));
> > You can let that line stick out.
> 
> I rather avoid having this as a checkpatch warnning... (automation and
> stuff...)

checkpatch.pl - while useful - should not be taken to the letter and
human brain should be applied to sanity check it what it warns about.

> This line break does seems to my eye as too hard to read.
> 
> Let me know if you feel strongly about it.

I'm just sayin' - in the end of the day you'll be staring at that code -
not me - so whatever *you* prefer. :-)

Just don't follow tools blindly.

> > > +     if (al_mc->irq_ue <= 0 || al_mc->irq_ce <= 0)
> > Shouldn't this be && here?
> > 
> > I mean, you want to poll when neither of the IRQs can be found. But then
> > if you find one of them and not the other, what do you do? Poll and
> > interrupt? Is that case even possible?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> In case dt defined interrupt line only for one type and not for the other,
> than the interrupt mode shall be used for one of them while polling mode for
> the other.

That warrants a comment above it.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette