linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] scsi: pm8001: use sas_find_attached_phy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:38:45 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        jejb@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        hare@...e.com, hch@....de, bvanassche@....org,
        john.garry@...wei.com, jinpu.wang@...ud.ionos.com,
        Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@...os.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] scsi: pm8001: use sas_find_attached_phy_id()
 instead of open coded

On 9/28/22 11:17, Jason Yan wrote:
> 
> On 2022/9/28 6:57, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 9/27/22 21:39, Jason Yan wrote:
>>> The attached phy id finding is open coded. Now we can replace it with
>>> sas_find_attached_phy_id(). To keep consistent, the return value of
>>> pm8001_dev_found_notify() is also changed to -ENODEV after calling
>>> sas_find_attathed_phy_id() failed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@...os.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c | 18 ++++++------------
>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c
>>> index 8e3f2f9ddaac..042c0843de1a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c
>>> @@ -645,22 +645,16 @@ static int pm8001_dev_found_notify(struct domain_device *dev)
>>>   	pm8001_device->dcompletion = &completion;
>>>   	if (parent_dev && dev_is_expander(parent_dev->dev_type)) {
>>>   		int phy_id;
>>> -		struct ex_phy *phy;
>>> -		for (phy_id = 0; phy_id < parent_dev->ex_dev.num_phys;
>>> -		phy_id++) {
>>> -			phy = &parent_dev->ex_dev.ex_phy[phy_id];
>>> -			if (SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)
>>> -				== SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr)) {
>>> -				pm8001_device->attached_phy = phy_id;
>>> -				break;
>>> -			}
>>> -		}
>>> -		if (phy_id == parent_dev->ex_dev.num_phys) {
>>> +
>>> +		phy_id = sas_find_attached_phy_id(&parent_dev->ex_dev, dev);
>>> +		if (phy_id == -ENODEV) {
>>>   			pm8001_dbg(pm8001_ha, FAIL,
>>>   				   "Error: no attached dev:%016llx at ex:%016llx.\n",
>>>   				   SAS_ADDR(dev->sas_addr),
>>>   				   SAS_ADDR(parent_dev->sas_addr));
>>> -			res = -1;
>>> +			res = phy_id;
>>
>> Nit:
>>
>> res = -ENODEV would be a lot clearer.
>> Or do:
>>
>> 		if (phy_id < 0) {
>> 			...
>> 			ret = phy_id;
>> 		} ...
>>
> 
> This boils down to personal preferences. I'd like to change to the 
> latter one if no objections.

Either work for me. The point is to preferably have something consistent
with the return value from sas_find_attached_phy_id() and not playing
games with it. So yes, the second one is fine.

> 
> Thanks,
> Jason
> 
>> No ?
>>
>>> +		} else {
>>> +			pm8001_device->attached_phy = phy_id;
>>>   		}
>>>   	} else {
>>>   		if (dev->dev_type == SAS_SATA_DEV) {
>>

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research