linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] hwmon: (coretemp) Introduce enum for attr index

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: <ZWllSmdI5pVGc0+3@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 20:47:06 -0800
From:   Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC:     Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] hwmon: (coretemp) Introduce enum for attr index

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:14:48PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/30/23 13:51, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 09:16:49PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> > > Introduce enum coretemp_attr_index to better describe the index of each
> > > sensor attribute and the maximum number of basic/possible attributes.
> > > 
> > > No functional change.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > index ba82d1e79c13..6053ed3761c2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> > > @@ -43,10 +43,18 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(tjmax, "TjMax value in degrees Celsius");
> > >   #define BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO	2	/* Sysfs Base attr no for coretemp */
> > >   #define NUM_REAL_CORES		128	/* Number of Real cores per cpu */
> > >   #define CORETEMP_NAME_LENGTH	28	/* String Length of attrs */
> > > -#define MAX_CORE_ATTRS		4	/* Maximum no of basic attrs */
> > > -#define TOTAL_ATTRS		(MAX_CORE_ATTRS + 1)
> > >   #define MAX_CORE_DATA		(NUM_REAL_CORES + BASE_SYSFS_ATTR_NO)
> > > +enum coretemp_attr_index {
> > > +	ATTR_LABEL,
> > > +	ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
> > > +	ATTR_TEMP,
> > > +	ATTR_TJMAX,
> > > +	ATTR_TTARGET,
> > > +	TOTAL_ATTRS,			/* Maximum no of possible attrs */
> > > +	MAX_CORE_ATTRS = ATTR_TJMAX + 1	/* Maximum no of basic attrs */
> > 
> > This seems odd. TOTAL_ATTRS being the last entry seems fine, but defining a
> > MAX_CORE_ATTR the way above sounds a bit hacky.
> > 
> 
> Complaining is easy. What do you suggest that would be better ?
> 
Fair enough.

How about 

ATTR_LABEL,
ATTR_CRIT_ALARM,
ATTR_TEMP,
ATTR_TJMAX,
MAX_CORE_ATTRS,		/* One more than TJMAX */
ATTR_TTARGET = MAX_CORE_ATTRS,
TOTAL_ATTRS

Each enum can be assigned any value, but this way they are just increasing
order.