linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] net: rnpgbe: Add build support for rnpgbe

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: <71381A4EED369AF0+20250813080054.GA965498@nic-Precision-5820-Tower>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:00:54 +0800
From: Yibo Dong <dong100@...se.com>
To: MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@...com>
Cc: "Anwar, Md Danish" <a0501179@...com>, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
	gur.stavi@...wei.com, maddy@...ux.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
	lee@...ger.us, gongfan1@...wei.com, lorenzo@...nel.org,
	geert+renesas@...der.be, Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com,
	lukas.bulwahn@...hat.com, alexanderduyck@...com,
	richardcochran@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] net: rnpgbe: Add build support for rnpgbe

On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 01:21:26PM +0530, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
> On 13/08/25 12:14 pm, Yibo Dong wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 09:48:07PM +0530, Anwar, Md Danish wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2025 3:09 PM, Dong Yibo wrote:
> >>> Add build options and doc for mucse.
> >>> Initialize pci device access for MUCSE devices.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dong Yibo <dong100@...se.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  .../device_drivers/ethernet/index.rst         |   1 +
> >>>  .../device_drivers/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe.rst  |  21 +++
> >>>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   8 +
> >>>  drivers/net/ethernet/Kconfig                  |   1 +
> >>>  drivers/net/ethernet/Makefile                 |   1 +
> >>>  drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/Kconfig            |  34 ++++
> >>>  drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/Makefile           |   7 +
> >>>  drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/Makefile    |   8 +
> >>>  drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe.h    |  25 +++
> >>>  .../net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_main.c   | 161 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  10 files changed, 267 insertions(+)
> >>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/networking/device_drivers/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe.rst
> >>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/Kconfig
> >>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/Makefile
> >>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/Makefile
> >>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe.h
> >>>  create mode 100644 drivers/net/ethernet/mucse/rnpgbe/rnpgbe_main.c
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>> + **/
> >>> +static int __init rnpgbe_init_module(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> +	ret = pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
> >>> +	if (ret)
> >>> +		return ret;
> >>> +
> >>> +	return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> Unnecessary code - can be simplified to just `return
> >> pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);`
> >>
> > 
> > Yes, but if I add some new codes which need some free after
> > pci_register_driver failed, the new patch will be like this:
> > 
> > -return pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
> > +int ret:
> > +wq = create_singlethread_workqueue(rnpgbe_driver_name);
> > +ret = pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
> > +if (ret) {
> > +	destroy_workqueue(wq);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +return 0;
> > 
> > Is this ok? Maybe not good to delete code for adding new feature?
> > This is what Andrew suggested not to do.
> > 
> 
> In this patch series you are not modifying rnpgbe_init_module() again.
> If you define a function as something in one patch and in later patches
> you change it to something else - That is not encouraged, you should not
> remove the code that you added in previous patches.
> 
> However here throughout your series you are not modifying this function.
> Now the diff that you are showing, I don't know when you plan to post
> that but as far as this series is concerned this diff is not part of the
> series.
> 
> static int __init rnpgbe_init_module(void)
> {
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	ret = pci_register_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
> 	if (ret)
> 		return ret;
> 
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> This to me just seems unnecessary. You can just return
> pci_register_driver() now and in future whenever you add other code you
> can modify the function.
> 
> It would have  made sense for you to keep it as it is if some later
> patch in your series would have modified it.
> 

Ok, I got it, thanks. I will just return pci_register_driver().

> >>> +
> >>> +module_init(rnpgbe_init_module);
> >>> +
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * rnpgbe_exit_module - Driver remove routine
> >>> + *
> >>> + * rnpgbe_exit_module is called when driver is removed
> >>> + **/
> >>> +static void __exit rnpgbe_exit_module(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	pci_unregister_driver(&rnpgbe_driver);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +module_exit(rnpgbe_exit_module);
> >>> +
> >>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, rnpgbe_pci_tbl);
> >>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Mucse Corporation, <techsupport@...se.com>");
> >>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Mucse(R) 1 Gigabit PCI Express Network Driver");
> >>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Thanks and Regards,
> >> Md Danish Anwar
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks and Regards,
> Danish
> 
> 

Thanks for your feedback.