linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4] net: phy: Add sysfs attribute for PHY c45 identifiers.

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: <ZIxkt3VmmNY2zs1m@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:33:43 +0100
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Jianhui Zhao <zhaojh329@...il.com>
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, hkallweit1@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] net: phy: Add sysfs attribute for PHY c45 identifiers.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 09:12:46PM +0800, Jianhui Zhao wrote:
> +static umode_t phy_dev_c45_visible(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr, int foo)
> +{
> +	struct phy_c45_devid_attribute *devattr =
> +		(struct phy_c45_devid_attribute *)container_of(attr, struct device_attribute, attr);

1. (struct phy_c45_devid_attribute *) cast is not required.
2. we now have two places that we convert the attribute to a
   phy_c45_devid_attribute, it's time for a macro to do that.

> +	struct phy_device *phydev = to_phy_device(kobj_to_dev(kobj));
> +
> +	if (!phydev->is_c45 || phydev->c45_ids.device_ids[devattr->index] == 0xffffffff)

	if (!phydev->is_c45 ||
	    phydev->c45_ids.device_ids[devattr->index] == 0xffffffff)

And lastly... please don't be so quick to post a new version.

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.1/process/maintainer-netdev.html#i-have-received-review-feedback-when-should-i-post-a-revised-version-of-the-patches

Particularly the bit about "Do not post a new version of the code if the
discussion about the previous version is still ongoing, unless directly
instructed by a reviewer." is relevent.

You have not given enough time for Andrew to respond to my suggestion
which I invited him to (by "Andrew, any opinions?"), instead rushing
out v4 that implements my suggestion without first waiting to see if
Andrew agrees with it.

This seems to be becoming common place, so I think it's about time I
created a vim macro to insert a boilerplate explaining this process in
every review. :(

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!