linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: pi433: move get version func to where all other functions are

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: <20220108163621.GA26654@realwakka>
Date:   Sat, 8 Jan 2022 16:36:21 +0000
From:   Sidong Yang <realwakka@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@...il.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: pi433: move get version func to where all
 other functions are

On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 02:19:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

Hi, Paul.
Thanks for applying my opinion. And there is one thing to metion.

> On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 08:24:38AM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:53:44AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > Just say:
> > > 
> > > 	retval = rf69_read_reg(spi, REG_VERSION);
> > 
> > atm rf69_read_reg is a static function in rf69.c.
> > 
> 
> I would remove be the static.
> 
> > I do agree that this is technically possible to write the code
> > exactly as you suggested but on the other hand, that would be the only
> > exception to the rule when considering all other higher-level functions
> > provided in the rf69.c
> 
> There may be other functions which will benefit from this later on.  So
> instead of "only" a better word is "first".  Some of those high level
> functions make sense because they are slightly complicated and have
> multiple callers.  But in this case open coding it seems easier to read.
> 
> > 
> > are you strongly set on the rf69_read_reg approach or would you
> > be open to keep the original approach? (rf69_get_version)
> 
> I think my approach is best but I don't care.
> 
> > 
> > > 	if (retval < 0)
> > > 		return retval;
> > > 
> > > Deleting the error handling was a bad style choice.  Also preserve the
> > > error code.
> > >
> > 
> > I just want to double-check if this suggestion is taking into
> > consideration what was mentioned here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220106210134.GB3416@mail.google.com/ 
> > 
> > If it is, I'm happy to add it back but I just wanted to confirm it
> > first.
> 
> Yes.  Keep the error handling.  Your way makes the code more complicated
> to read.

I totally really agree with it.
Because the switch clause under this patch catches error with 'default:'
but it returns '-ENODEV'. I worried that it lost retval from reading
register if it has error.

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>