linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Create defines for operations in ibm,ddw-applicable

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: <01443a2f1d58a595ddff03fd14fd56f4c26171bf.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 01 Jul 2020 10:28:03 -0300
From:   Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@...il.com>
To:     Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Create defines for
 operations in ibm,ddw-applicable

On Wed, 2020-07-01 at 18:16 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 
> On 24/06/2020 16:24, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Create defines to help handling ibm,ddw-applicable values, avoiding
> > confusion about the index of given operations.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 40 +++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > index 6d47b4a3ce39..68d2aa9c71a8 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > @@ -39,6 +39,11 @@
> >  
> >  #include "pseries.h"
> >  
> > +#define DDW_QUERY_PE_DMA_WIN	0
> > +#define DDW_CREATE_PE_DMA_WIN	1
> > +#define DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN	2
> > +#define DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE	3
> 
> #define DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE  (DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN + 1)
> 
> thanks,

Thanks for the feedback!
About this (and patch #2), would it be better to use enum ?
enum {
	DDW_QUERY_PE_DMA_WIN,
	DDW_CREATE_PE_DMA_WIN,
	DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN,

	DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE
}
IMO, it looks better than all the defines before.

What do you think?

Best regards,