linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] hwmon/coretemp: Handle large core id value

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: <YveBgsVINyKjXW9g@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:48:34 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
        corbet@....net, fenghua.yu@...el.com, jdelvare@...e.com,
        linux@...ck-us.net, len.brown@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] hwmon/coretemp: Handle large core id value


* Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com> wrote:

> The coretemp driver supports up to a hard-coded limit of 128 cores.
> 
> Today, the driver can not support a core with an id above that limit.
> Yet, the encoding of core_id's is arbitrary (BIOS APIC-id) and so they
> may be sparse and they may be large.
> 
> Update the driver to map arbitrary core_id numbers into appropriate
> array indexes so that 128 cores can be supported, no matter the encoding
> of core_ids's.

Please capitalize 'ID' consistently throughout the series.

> -	attr_no = pkg_flag ? PKG_SYSFS_ATTR_NO : TO_ATTR_NO(cpu);
> +	if (pkg_flag)
> +		attr_no = PKG_SYSFS_ATTR_NO;
> +	else {
> +		index = ida_alloc(&pdata->ida, GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (index < 0)
> +			return index;
> +		pdata->cpu_map[index] = topology_core_id(cpu);
> +		attr_no = index + BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO;
> +	}

Unbalanced curly braces.

> -	int err, attr_no;
> +	int err, index, attr_no;

So it's 'index' here.

> @@ -524,6 +538,8 @@ static void coretemp_remove_core(struct platform_data *pdata, int indx)

But 'indx' here.

> -	int indx, target;
> +	int i, indx = -1, target;

And 'indx' again. Did we run out of the letter 'e'? Either use 'index' 
naming consistently, or 'idx' if it has to be abbreviated.

Thanks,

	Ingo