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

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

Message-ID: <9aebcbbf-aaba-f7e8-7397-18284e74ab0d@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:55:20 +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

Hi Paul,

Le 05/03/2022 à 10:51, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Are you still expecting a v2 for this patch ?

As the name of the structure is nvbios_rom, do you really prefer the 
functions to be called nvbios_prom_* as you mentionned in your comment ?

In that case, do you also expect the structure name to be changed to 
nvbios_prom ?

Thanks
Christophe