linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Factor out do_write_buffer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d7e637be-0489-44f0-b5ab-86eb55484fde@ti.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2026 15:29:59 +0530
From: "Raghavendra, Vignesh" <vigneshr@...com>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Andy Shevchenko
	<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC: <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Richard
 Weinberger" <richard@....at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Factor out
 do_write_buffer_locked() to reduce stack frame

Hi,

On 1/29/2026 11:53 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> 
>>> Fix this by factoring out do_write_buffer_locked().
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>  	XIP_INVAL_CACHED_RANGE(map, initial_adr, initial_len);
>>>  	ENABLE_VPP(map);
>>
>> It seems more logical to leave these two in the original call.
>>
>> ...
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> +	DISABLE_VPP(map);
>>
>> Otherwise this will seem dangling here.
>>
>>>  	put_chip(map, chip, cmd_adr);
>>>  	mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
>>>  	return ret;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Another approach is to leave goto as is in the _locked() and move DISABLE_VPP()
>> there.
>>
>> Tell me what do you prefer?
> 
> While I also find more logical to keep the ENABLE_VPP/DISABLE_VPP
> together, I do not mind to see them in one side or the other. I would by
> default let them in the main caller and suffi the inner function with
> "_locked()" as you did, but I'm fine either ways.
> 

Keeping ENABLE_VPP/DISABLE_VPP together along with _locked() suffix for
inner function is cleaner to read.

Regards
Vignesh