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: <20241126-spry-wildebeest-of-cubism-da0a9e@houat>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:09:59 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Nyekjaer <sean@...nix.com>, 
	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 Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 12:16:34PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 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.
> """

Both is_stuff_okay() or assert_stuff() return a boolean in my mind. If
you want to return a mode status enum, I don't think they are better
names.

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (274 bytes)