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: <871pyyxjwz.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 14:24:12 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
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, 26 Nov 2024, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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.

Most functions returning enum drm_mode_status are called
something_something_mode_valid(). Not check something.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel