linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/14] cxl/mem: Map memory device registers

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]

Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 17:12:19 +0000
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Chris Browy <cbrowy@...ry-design.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        daniel.lll@...baba-inc.com,
        "John Groves (jgroves)" <jgroves@...ron.com>,
        "Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] cxl/mem: Map memory device registers

On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 10:31:51AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > +		if (reg_type == CXL_REGLOC_RBI_MEMDEV) {
> > > +			rc = 0;
> > > +			cxlm = cxl_mem_create(pdev, reg_lo, reg_hi);
> > > +			if (!cxlm)
> > > +				rc = -ENODEV;
> > > +			break;
> > 
> > And given that we're going to grow more types eventually, why not start
> > out with a switch here?  Also why return the structure when nothing
> > uses it?
> 
>  We've (Intel) already started working on the libnvdimm integration which does
>  change this around a bit. In order to go with what's best tested though, I've
>  chosen to use this as is for merge. Many different people not just in Intel
>  have tested these codepaths. The resulting code moves the check on register
>  type out of this function entirely.
> 
>  If you'd like me to make it a switch, I can, but it's going to be extracted
>  later anyway.

This was just a suggestion.  No hard feelings, it's just that the code
looks a little odd to me.