linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ufs: core: Rename LSDB to LSDBS to reflect the UFSHCI 4.0 spec

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: <f339f1be-4d5f-46f4-8d57-473f38901bd8@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:09:06 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
 Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
 "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
 "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Kyoungrul Kim <k831.kim@...sung.com>,
 Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ufs: core: Rename LSDB to LSDBS to reflect the
 UFSHCI 4.0 spec

On 8/14/24 10:16 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam via B4 Relay wrote:
>   	/*
>   	 * The UFSHCI 3.0 specification does not define MCQ_SUPPORT and
> -	 * LSDB_SUPPORT, but [31:29] as reserved bits with reset value 0s, which
> +	 * LSDBS_SUPPORT, but [31:29] as reserved bits with reset value 0s, which
>   	 * means we can simply read values regardless of version.
>   	 */

Hmm ... neither MCQ_SUPPORT nor LSDBS_SUPPORT occurs in the UFSHCI 4.0 
specification. I found the acronyms "MCQS" and "LSDBS" in that
specification. I propose either not to modify the above comment or to 
use the acronyms used in the UFSHCI 4.0 standard.

>   	hba->mcq_sup = FIELD_GET(MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
> @@ -2426,7 +2426,7 @@ static inline int ufshcd_hba_capabilities(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>   	 * 0h: legacy single doorbell support is available
>   	 * 1h: indicate that legacy single doorbell support has been removed
>   	 */
> -	hba->lsdb_sup = !FIELD_GET(MASK_LSDB_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
> +	hba->lsdbs_sup = !FIELD_GET(MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT, hba->capabilities);
>   	if (!hba->mcq_sup)
>   		return 0;

The final "s" in "lsdbs" stands for "support" so there are now two
references to the word "support" in the "lsdbs_sup" member name. Isn't
the original structure member name ("lsdb_sup") better because it 
doesn't have that redundancy?

>   	MASK_CRYPTO_SUPPORT			= 0x10000000,
> -	MASK_LSDB_SUPPORT			= 0x20000000,
> +	MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT			= 0x20000000,
>   	MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT			= 0x40000000,

Same comment here: in the constant name "MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT" there are
two references to the word "support". Isn't the original name better?
Additionally, this change introduces an inconsistency between the
constant names "MASK_LSDBS_SUPPORT" and "MASK_MCQ_SUPPORT". The former
name includes the acronym from the spec (LSDBS) but the latter name not
(MCQS). Wouldn't it be better to leave this change out?

Thanks,

Bart.