linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Rework the logic finding the bypass quirk

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]

Message-ID: <ZBHSSrcOYtLpnFsm@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 15:12:26 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     will@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org, robin.murphy@....com,
        andersson@...nel.org, johan+linaro@...nel.org, steev@...i.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Rework the logic finding the
 bypass quirk

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 07:07:30PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 09:38:42AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 01:29:58PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 08:37:32AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > 
> > > > > +static int qcom_smmu_cfg_probe(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	u32 smr;
> > > > > +	int i;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * Limit the number of stream matching groups to 128 as the ARM SMMU architecture
> > > > > +	 * specification defines NUMSMRG (Number of Stream Mapping Register Groups) in the
> > > > > +	 * range of 0-127, but some Qcom platforms emulate more stream mapping groups. And
> > > > > +	 * those groups don't exhibit the same behavior as the architecture supported ones.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > 
> > > > Please fix your editor so that it wraps lines at 80 columns, which is
> > > > still the preferred (soft) limit.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > If exceeding 80 columns end up making the comment more readable (fewer lines),
> > > then why should we limit ourselves?
> > 
> > Exceeding 80 column for comments does generally not improve readability.
> > 
> 
> It all depends on the perspective/preference... But I can limit to 80 columns
> here.

No, this is not about preference. The soft limit is 80 columns and a
valid reason for breaking that for comments would be, for example, if
you have a long URL or something which does not fit within that width
(and not just personal preference).

Johan