linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: cdev: Split line_get_debounce

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: <CAMRc=McPzQyR1J5Mhn7_cBrWEcqz2JKg7t8CpjHx6jgVEnYBvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 14:37:43 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: cdev: Split line_get_debounce_period()
 and use

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 1:56 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 02:39:38PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 09:12:37AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > Instead of repeating the same code and reduce possible miss
> > > > of READ_ONCE(), split line_get_debounce_period() heler out
> > > > and use in the existing cases.
> > > >
> > >
> > > helper
> > >
> > > Not a fan of this change.
> > >
> > > So using READ_ONCE() is repeating code??
> >
> > Yes. Because one may forget about it.
>
> Just as one may forget to use your wrapper.
> This argument is a NULL - so I'll just forget about it.
>
> >
> > > Doesn't providing a wrapper around READ_ONCE() just rename that repitition?
> > > What of all the other uses of READ_ONCE() in cdev (and there are a lot) -
> > > why pick on debounce_period?
> >
> > Because you have a setter, but getter. Inconsistency.
> >
>
> But then "for consistency" ALL the struct line fields require accessors
> and mutators.  That path is insanity.
>
> The setter is there as setting the value now has side effects - none of
> which are visible to the caller, hence the usage of the standard
> setter name.
> You are siggesting every function name describe everything the function
> does?
>
> And, in case you've forgotten, YOU REVIEWED THIS.
>
> > > The line_set_debounce_period() is necessary as the set is now a
> > > multi-step process as it can impact whether the line is contained
> > > in the supinfo_tree.  The get is just a get.
> > >
> > > And you could've included me in the Cc so I didn't just find it by
> > > accident.
> >
> > Maybe it's time to add you to the MAINTAINERS for this file as a designated
> > reviewer?
> >
>
> You are patching my recent change that you yourself reviewed only days
> ago. I would think that you would Cc me whether I were a maintainer or
> not as I'm very likely to have relevant feedback.

On that note: do you see yourself as a full GPIO reviewer or do you
prefer I split out the uAPI part into a separate section in
MAINTAINERS and nominate you as its maintainer?

Bart

>
> Cheers,
> Kent.