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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 5 May 2020 13:55:14 +0300
From:   "Shenhar, Talel" <talel@...zon.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 5/4/2020 9:37 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> 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.
Thanks, I will leave it that way as it will make my life easier (with 
automatic vim tools and automation) and doesn't really break code 
understanding.
>
>>>> +     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.
Shall be part of v7.
>
> Thx.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>      Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette