linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v11 3/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx ops support

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: <20250910180207.2dd90708@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 18:02:07 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Yibo Dong <dong100@...se.com>
Cc: "Anwar, Md Danish" <a0501179@...com>, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, 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, kees@...nel.org,
 gustavoars@...nel.org, rdunlap@...radead.org, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 3/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx ops support

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:56:36 +0800 Yibo Dong wrote:
> > Not sure this is really necessary, I'd expect C programmers to intuit 
> > that 4 is the number of bytes in u32 here. sizeof(u32) is going to
> > overflow 80 char line limit and cause more harm than good.
> >   
> 
> I found similar code in other drivers, ixgbe, it like this:
> 
> #define IXGBE_READ_REG_ARRAY(a, reg, offset) \
>                  ixgbe_read_reg((a), (reg) + ((offset) << 2))
> 
>          for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
>                  msg[i] = IXGBE_READ_REG_ARRAY(hw, IXGBE_PFMBMEM(vf_number), i);
> 
> Maybe I should follow that style?

Personal preference at this stage, but I like your code more.