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: <9af5710c-e465-4e21-8705-4698e544c649@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 02:04:57 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yibo Dong <dong100@...se.com>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, 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

> If it is more cleaner bellow?
> 
> 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)
>                 goto quit;
>         do {
>                 err = hw->mbx.ops->read_posted(hw, (u32 *)reply,
>                                                L_WD(sizeof(*reply)));
>                 if (err)
>                         goto quit;
>         } while (--retry_cnt >= 0 && reply->opcode != req->opcode);
> 
>         mutex_unlock(&hw->mbx.lock);
>         if (retry_cnt < 0)
>                 return -ETIMEDOUT;
>         if (reply->error_code)
>                 return -EIO;
>         return 0;
> quit:
>         mutex_unlock(&hw->mbx.lock);
>         return err;
> }

You might want a read a few other drivers in mailine. Look at the
naming. I doubt you will find many using "quit" for a label. "out" or
"unlock" is more popular.

When it comes to locks, it is better to have one lock statement and
one unlock statement. It then becomes easy to see all paths lead to
the unlock.

	Andrew