linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] fpga: dfl: add generic support for MSIX interrupts

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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 10:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:   matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     hao.wu@...el.com, yilun.xu@...el.com, russell.h.weight@...el.com,
        basheer.ahmed.muddebihal@...el.com, trix@...hat.com,
        mdf@...nel.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tianfei.zhang@...el.com, corbet@....net,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        jirislaby@...nel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
        niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se, phil.edworthy@...esas.com,
        macro@...am.me.uk, johan@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] fpga: dfl: add generic support for MSIX
 interrupts



On Thu, 8 Sep 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 02:37:32PM -0700, matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 12:04:25PM -0700, matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> +	if (fid != FEATURE_ID_AFU && fid != PORT_FEATURE_ID_ERROR &&
>>>> +	    fid != PORT_FEATURE_ID_UINT && fid != FME_FEATURE_ID_GLOBAL_ERR) {
>>>> +		v = readq(base);
>>>> +		v = FIELD_GET(DFH_VERSION, v);
>>>> +
>>>> +		if (v == 1) {
>>>> +			v =  readq(base + DFHv1_CSR_SIZE_GRP);
>>>
>>> I am already lost what v keeps...
>>>
>>> Perhaps
>>>
>>> 		v = readq(base);
>>> 		switch (FIELD_GET(DFH_VERSION, v)) {
>>> 		case 1:
>>> 			...
>>> 			break;
>>> 		}
>>
>> How about?
>> 		if (FIELD_GET(DFH_VERSION, readq(base)) == 1) {
>> 			...
>> 		}
>
> This one tends to be expanded in the future, so I would keep it switch case.
>

I'm okay with using the switch statement, but how about the following?

 		switch (FIELD_GET(DFH_VERSION, readq(base))) {
                 case 1:
 			...
 			break;
 		}
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
>