linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/4] stmmac: loongson: Remove surplus loop

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: <3db2c2fd-5125-4664-83d0-a0706ef2050f@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 09:57:03 +0800
From: Yanteng Si <si.yanteng@...ux.dev>
To: Philipp Stanner <pstanner@...hat.com>, Philipp Stanner
 <phasta@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
 Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
 Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Yinggang Gu <guyinggang@...ngson.cn>,
 Feiyang Chen <chenfeiyang@...ngson.cn>, Jiaxun Yang
 <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>, Qing Zhang <zhangqing@...ngson.cn>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/4] stmmac: loongson: Remove surplus loop

在 2/25/25 5:15 PM, Philipp Stanner 写道:
> On Tue, 2025-02-25 at 17:06 +0800, Yanteng Si wrote:
>> 在 2/24/25 9:53 PM, Philipp Stanner 写道:
>>> loongson_dwmac_probe() contains a loop which doesn't have an
>>> effect,
>>> because it tries to call pcim_iomap_regions() with the same
>>> parameters
>>> several times. The break statement at the loop's end furthermore
>>> ensures
>>> that the loop only runs once anyways.
>>>
>>> Remove the surplus loop.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...nel.org>
>> It seems that the fix-tag has been forgotten, next two patches as
>> well.
> Not forgotten, I just think that patches 2-4 are code improvements, not
> bug fixes.
>
> The issue in patch 1 would cause actual misbehavior (a useless debug
> information print in case of a resource collision), whereas 2-4 are
> just ugly code, but not actual bugs: the loop always just runs once;
> and unmapping the PCI resources manually is valid, but obviously
> unnecessary.
>
> Agreed?

You bet!

Thanks,

Yanteng

>