linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line parameter logic

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:   Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:22:39 +0200
From:   Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
To:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Cc:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line
 parameter logic

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 11:09:13 +0100
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Am 12.11.21 um 10:39 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> > Hello Pekka,
> > 
> > On 11/12/21 09:56, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> >   
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> these ideas make sense to me, so FWIW,
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@...labora.com>
> >>  
> > 
> > Thanks.
> >   
> >> There is one nitpick I'd like to ask about:
> >>
> >> +bool drm_get_modeset(void)
> >> +{
> >> +     return !drm_nomodeset;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_get_modeset);
> >>
> >> Doesn't "get" have a special meaning in the kernel land, like "take a
> >> strong reference on an object and return it"?  
> > 
> > That's a very good point.
> >   
> >> As this is just returning bool without changing anything, the usual
> >> word to use is "is". Since this function is also used at most once per
> >> driver, which is rarely, it could have a long and descriptive name.
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> bool drm_is_modeset_driver_allowed(void);  
> 
> I'd nominate
> 
>    bool drm_native_drivers_enabled()
> 
> This is what HW-specific drivers want to query in their init/probing 
> code. The actual semantics of this decision is hidden from the driver. 
> It's also easier to read than the other name IMHO

Ok, but what is a "native driver"? Or a "non-native driver"?
Is that established kernel terminology?

I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is
loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is
the driver that would not consult this function, right?


Thanks,
pq

> 
> Best regards
> Thomas
> 
> >>  
> > 
> > Yeah, naming is hard. Jani also mentioned that he didn't like this
> > function name, so I don't mind to re-spin the series only for that.
> >   
> >> - "drm" is the namespace
> >> - "is" implies it is a read-only boolean inspection
> >> - "modeset" is the feature being checked
> >> - "driver" implies it is supposed gate driver loading or
> >>    initialization, rather than modesets after drivers have loaded
> >> - "allowed" says it is asking about general policy rather than what a
> >>    driver does
> >>  
> > 
> > I believe that name is more verbose than needed. But don't have a
> > strong opinion and could use it if others agree.
> >   
> >> Just a bikeshed, I'll leave it to actual kernel devs to say if this
> >> would be more appropriate or worth it.
> >>  
> > 
> > I think is worth it and better to do it now before the patches land, but
> > we could wait for others to chime in.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > --
> > Javier Martinez Canillas
> > Linux Engineering
> > Red Hat
> >   
> 


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped