linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] PCI: probe: Use pci_find_vsec_capability() when looking for TBT devices

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YZJOP7kgh4XxNpqe@rocinante>
Date:   Mon, 15 Nov 2021 13:10:39 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] PCI: probe: Use pci_find_vsec_capability() when
 looking for TBT devices

Hi Andy,

> > Nice find!  There might one more driver that leverages the vendor-specific
> > capabilities that seems to be also open coding pci_find_vsec_capability(),
> > as per:
> > ...
> > Do you think that it would be worthwhile to also update this other driver
> > to use pci_find_vsec_capability() at the same time?  I might be nice to rid
> > of the other open coded implementation too.
> 
> You mean https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fpga/20211109154127.18455-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/T/#u?

Ohh!  Thank you for doing it!  Sorry for mentioning it twice then, I wasn't
aware of the conversation there on the other mailing list.

> It seems a bit hard to explain HW people how the Linux kernel development
> process is working. (Yes, shame on me that I haven't compiled that one)

I see what you mean... (after reading the linked conversation).

> > > Currently the set_pcie_thunderbolt() opens code pci_find_vsec_capability().
> > 
> > I would write it as "open codes" in the above.
> 
> Hmm... Is anybody among us a native speaker (me — no)? :-)

Admittedly, neither am I, so hopefully Bjorn (or other native speaker) can
chime in.  Albeit, it's probably not worth spending a lot of time over.

> But if you think it's better like this I'll definitely change.
> (I admit I'm lost in a morphological analysis of the above two
>  words)

Sorry about that!  It was simple something I noticed while reading the
commit messaged - looked somewhat different than the usual to my unskilled
and untrained eyes.

	Krzysztof