linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] dpll: fix clock quality level reporting

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: <20250914130317.09369dd0@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 13:03:17 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>, Jiri Pirko
 <jiri@...nulli.us>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] dpll: fix clock quality level reporting

On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 13:09:03 +0200 Ivan Vecera wrote:
> >> +    DECLARE_BITMAP(qls, DPLL_CLOCK_QUALITY_LEVEL_MAX + 1) = { 0 };
> >>       const struct dpll_device_ops *ops = dpll_device_ops(dpll);
> >> -    DECLARE_BITMAP(qls, DPLL_CLOCK_QUALITY_LEVEL_MAX) = { 0 };  
> > 
> > I believe __DPLL_CLOCK_QUALITY_LEVEL_MAX should be used in both places  
> 
> I don't think so. I consider __DPLL_CLOCK_QUALITY_LEVEL_MAX to be an
> auxiliary value that should not be used directly.
> 
> But it would be possible to rename it to DPLL_CLOCK_QUALITY_LEVEL_COUNT
> and use this.
> 
> Thoughts?

I think we should leave it as is. The naming convention is a bit weird
but it's what has been done for Netlink historically