linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/bios: Rename prom

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]

Date:   Sat, 5 Mar 2022 10:51:43 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/bios: Rename prom_init() and friends
 functions



Le 05/03/2022 à 08:38, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 04/03/2022 à 21:24, Lyude Paul a écrit :
>> This mostly looks good to me. Just one question (and one comment down 
>> below
>> that needs addressing). Is this with ppc32? (I ask because ppc64le 
>> doesn't
>> seem to hit this compilation error).
> 
> That's with PPC64, see 
> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/chleroy/head/252ba609bea83234d2e35841c19ae84c67b43ec7/ 
> 
> 
> But that's not (yet) with the mainline tree. That's work I'm doing to 
> cleanup our asm/asm-protoypes.h header.
> 
> Since commit 4efca4ed05cb ("kbuild: modversions for EXPORT_SYMBOL() for 
> asm") that file is dedicated to prototypes of functions defined in 
> assembly. Therefore I'm trying to dispatch C functions prototypes in 
> other headers. I wanted to move prom_init() prototype into asm/prom.h 
> and then I hit the problem.
> 
> In the beginning I was thinking about just changing the name of the 
> function in powerpc, but as I see that M68K, MIPS and SPARC also have a 
> prom_init() function, I thought it would be better to change the name in 
> shadowrom.c to avoid any future conflict like the one I got while 
> reworking the headers.
> 
> 
>>> @@ -57,8 +57,8 @@ prom_init(struct nvkm_bios *bios, const char *name)
>>>   const struct nvbios_source
>>>   nvbios_rom = {
>>>          .name = "PROM",
>>> -       .init = prom_init,
>>> -       .fini = prom_fini,
>>> -       .read = prom_read,
>>> +       .init = nvbios_rom_init,
>>> +       .fini = nvbios_rom_fini,
>>> +       .read = nvbios_rom_read,
>>
>> Seeing as the source name is prom, I think using the naming convention
>> nvbios_prom_* would be better then nvbios_rom_*.
>>
> 
> Yes I wasn't sure about the best naming as the file name is shadowrom.c 
> and not shadowprom.c.
> 
> I will send v2 using nvbios_prom_* as a name.

While preparing v2 I remembered that in fact, I called the functions 
nvbios_rom_* because the name of the nvbios_source struct is nvbios_rom, 
so for me it made sense to use the name of the struct as a prefix for 
the functions.

So I'm OK to change it to nvbios_prom_* but it looks less logical to me.

Please confirm you still prefer nvbios_prom as prefix to the function names.

Christophe