linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx

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: <211A876E5960B039+20250813081202.GB965498@nic-Precision-5820-Tower>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:12:02 +0800
From: Yibo Dong <dong100@...se.com>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: 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, danishanwar@...com, 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 4/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx_fw support

On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 05:14:15PM +0100, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> On 12/08/2025 10:39, Dong Yibo wrote:
> > Initialize basic mbx_fw ops, such as get_capability, reset phy
> > and so on.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dong Yibo <dong100@...se.com>
> > +static int mucse_fw_send_cmd_wait(struct mucse_hw *hw,
> > +				  struct mbx_fw_cmd_req *req,
> > +				  struct mbx_fw_cmd_reply *reply)
> > +{
> > +	int len = le16_to_cpu(req->datalen) + MBX_REQ_HDR_LEN;
> > +	int retry_cnt = 3;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&hw->mbx.lock);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +	err = hw->mbx.ops->write_posted(hw, (u32 *)req,
> > +					L_WD(len));
> > +	if (err) {> +		mutex_unlock(&hw->mbx.lock);
> > +		return err;
> > +	}
> 
> it might look a bit cleaner if you add error label and have unlock code
> once in the end of the function...
> 

Ok, I will try to update this.

> > +	do {
> > +		err = hw->mbx.ops->read_posted(hw, (u32 *)reply,
> > +					       L_WD(sizeof(*reply)));
> > +		if (err) {
> > +			mutex_unlock(&hw->mbx.lock);
> > +			return err;
> > +		}
> > +	} while (--retry_cnt >= 0 && reply->opcode != req->opcode);
> > +	mutex_unlock(&hw->mbx.lock);
> > +	if (retry_cnt < 0 || reply->error_code)
> > +		return -EIO;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * mucse_fw_get_capability - Get hw abilities from fw
> > + * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
> > + * @abil: pointer to the hw_abilities structure
> > + *
> > + * mucse_fw_get_capability tries to get hw abilities from
> > + * hw.
> > + *
> > + * @return: 0 on success, negative on failure
> > + **/
> > +static int mucse_fw_get_capability(struct mucse_hw *hw,
> > +				   struct hw_abilities *abil)
> > +{
> > +	struct mbx_fw_cmd_reply reply;
> > +	struct mbx_fw_cmd_req req;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	memset(&req, 0, sizeof(req));
> > +	memset(&reply, 0, sizeof(reply));
> 
> probably
> 
> 	struct mbx_fw_cmd_reply reply = {};
> 	struct mbx_fw_cmd_req req = {};
> 
> will look better. in the other functions as well..
> 
> 
> 

Got it, I will update it.

Thanks for your feedback.