linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] staging: vchiq_core: Consolidate bulk xfer helper

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b7e0d579-a3c5-42ee-a65c-945f5c368124@ideasonboard.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 09:40:37 +0530
From: Umang Jain <umang.jain@...asonboard.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Broadcom internal kernel review list
 <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
 linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
 Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] staging: vchiq_core: Consolidate bulk xfer helper

Hi Dan,

On 25/09/24 2:53 pm, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 07:51:27PM +0530, Umang Jain wrote:
>> Few functions were identified were their declaration, definition
>> and usage were spread (incorrectly) across vchiq_core and vchiq_arm.
>>
>> These are being consolidated into vchiq_core in this series.
>> Please look at individual patches for details.
>>
>> 2/3 is in particular a big one. The code is just a move, but
>> seems big - as it was diffcult to split it into smaller, compilable
>> hunks of individual patches.
>>
>> Umang Jain (3):
>>    staging: vchiq_core: Move remote_event_signal() vchiq_core
>>    staging: vchiq_core: Move bulk data functions in vchiq_core
>>    staging: vchiq_core: Drop vchiq_pagelist.h
>>
> Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>

Thanks for reviewing.

>
> But next time, if you're just moving code around, just ignore checkpatch.  Do
> the white space changes as a separate patch.

Thanks for the tip, will surely keep this mind.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
> +-                      memcpy_to_page(pages[0],
> +-                              pagelist->offset,
> +-                              fragments,
> +-                              head_bytes);
> ++                      memcpy_to_page(pages[0], pagelist->offset,
> ++                                     fragments, head_bytes);
>   }
> +               if ((actual >= 0) && (head_bytes < actual) &&
> +                   (tail_bytes != 0))
> +                       memcpy_to_page(pages[num_pages - 1],
> +-                              (pagelist->offset + actual) &
> +-                              (PAGE_SIZE - 1) & ~(drv_mgmt->info->cache_line_size - 1),
> +-                              fragments + drv_mgmt->info->cache_line_size,
> +-                              tail_bytes);
> ++                                     (pagelist->offset + actual) &
> ++                                     (PAGE_SIZE - 1) & ~(drv_mgmt->info->cache_line_size - 1),
> ++                                     fragments + drv_mgmt->info->cache_line_size,
> ++                                     tail_bytes);
>