linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 3/6] net: ethernet: implement OA TC6 configuration function

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: <d2d26c6c-0345-46cf-b806-15834ba8b40f@lunn.ch>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:54:47 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        corbet@....net, Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com,
        rdunlap@...radead.org, horms@...nel.org, casper.casan@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com, Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com,
        Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 3/6] net: ethernet: implement OA TC6
 configuration function

> >> +/* Unmasking interrupt fields in IMASK0 */
> >> +#define HDREM                ~BIT(5)         /* Header Error Mask */
> >> +#define LOFEM                ~BIT(4)         /* Loss of Framing Error Mask */
> >> +#define RXBOEM               ~BIT(3)         /* Rx Buffer Overflow Error Mask */
> >> +#define TXBUEM               ~BIT(2)         /* Tx Buffer Underflow Error Mask */
> >> +#define TXBOEM               ~BIT(1)         /* Tx Buffer Overflow Error Mask */
> >> +#define TXPEM                ~BIT(0)         /* Tx Protocol Error Mask */
> > 
> > Using ~BIT(X) is very usual. I would not do this, Principle of Least
> > Surprise.
> Sorry, I don't get your point. Could you please explain bit more?

Look around kernel header files. How often do you see ~BIT(5)?  My
guess it is approximately 0. So i'm suggesting you remove the ~ and
have the user of the #define assemble the mask and then do the ~ .

     Andrew