linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] gpiolib: Introduce for_each_gpio_desc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YKYe4rgGTDRfq+va@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 10:33:38 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] gpiolib: Introduce for_each_gpio_desc_if() macro

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:15:31AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:07 AM Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:33:39AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> > The _if suffix here is too vague.
> >
> > Please use a more descriptive name so that you don't need to look at the
> > implementation to understand what the macro does.
> >
> > Perhaps call it
> >
> >         for_each_gpio_desc_with_flag()
> 
> Haha, I have the same in my internal tree, but then I have changed to
> _if and here is why:
> - the API is solely for internal use (note, internals of struct
> gpio_desc available for the same set of users)

That's not a valid argument here. You should never make code harder to
read.

There are other ways of marking functions as intended for internal use
(e.g. do not export them and add a _ prefix or whatever).

> - the current users do only same pattern

That's not an argument against using a descriptive name. Possibly
against adding a generic for_each_gpio_desc() macro.

> - I don't expect that we will have this to be anything else in the future

Again, irrelevant. Possibly an argument against adding another helper in
the first place.

> Thus, _if is a good balance between scope of use and naming.

No, no, no. It's never a good idea to obfuscate code.

> I prefer to leave it as is.

I hope you'll reconsider, or that my arguments can convince the
maintainers to step in here.

> > or just add the more generic macro
> >
> >         for_each_gpio_desc()
> >
> > and open-code the test so that it's clear what's going on here.

FWIW, NAK due to the non-descriptive for_each_desc_if() name.

Johan