linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/modes: introduce drm_mode_validate

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: <874j3uxptp.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:16:34 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Sean Nyekjaer <sean@...nix.com>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Zimmermann
 <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter
 <simona@...ll.ch>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Jernej Skrabec
 <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>, Yannick
 Fertre <yannick.fertre@...s.st.com>, Raphael Gallais-Pou
 <raphael.gallais-pou@...s.st.com>, Philippe Cornu
 <philippe.cornu@...s.st.com>, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
 Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/modes: introduce drm_mode_validate_mode()
 helper function

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org> wrote:
> I wonder about the naming though (and prototype). I doesn't really
> validates a mode, but rather makes sure that a given rate is a good
> approximation of a pixel clock. So maybe something like
> drm_mode_check_pixel_clock?

Quoting myself from a few weeks back:

"""
Random programming thought of the day: "check" is generally a terrible
word in a function name.

Checking stuff is great, but what do you expect to happen if the check
passes/fails? Do you expect the function to return on fail, or throw an
exception? Or just log about it? If you return a value, what should the
return value mean? It's hard to know without looking it up.

Prefer predicates instead, is_stuff_okay() is better than
check_stuff(). Or assert_stuff() if you don't return on failures.
"""


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel