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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <YKYo5EBBDbSDiIwD@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 12:16:20 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     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 10:33:38AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 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.

Btw, missed argument

..._with_flag(..., FLAG_...)

breaks the DRY principle. If you read current code it's clear with that

_if(..., FLAG_...)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko