linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/12] pata_parport: remove devtype from struct pi

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: <16f5f350-5aae-8ba1-d72c-fded975fb5af@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Sun, 12 Feb 2023 21:17:10 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     Ondrej Zary <linux@...y.sk>, Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Tim Waugh <tim@...erelk.net>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] pata_parport: remove devtype from struct pi_adapter

On 2/12/23 05:47, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Saturday 11 February 2023 20:11:06 Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
>> On 2/11/23 5:42 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>>
>>> Only bpck driver uses devtype but it never gets set in pata_parport.
>>> Remove it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@...y.sk>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/ata/pata_parport/bpck.c | 2 +-
>>>  include/linux/pata_parport.h    | 3 ---
>>>  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_parport/bpck.c b/drivers/ata/pata_parport/bpck.c
>>> index b9174cf8863c..451a068fe28a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ata/pata_parport/bpck.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_parport/bpck.c
>>> @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static void bpck_connect ( PIA *pi  )
>>>  
>>>  	WR(5,8);
>>>  
>>> -	if (pi->devtype == PI_PCD) {
>>> +	if (1 /*pi->devtype == PI_PCD*/) {	/* FIXME */
>>>  		WR(0x46,0x10);		/* fiddle with ESS logic ??? */
>>
>>    Why not drop this entire *if* stmt? 
> 
> I decided to keep it (for now) as a marker of a possible bug. I currently don't have HW to test this driver.

Then leave that if as-is and only add a comment detailing what needs to be
done (rather than just "FIXME"). This "if (1)" is just too odd and will
likely trigger code checker warnings.

> 
>>
>>>  		WR(0x4c,0x38);
>>>  		WR(0x4d,0x88);
>> [...]
>>
>> MBR, Sergey
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research