netdev - RE: [net-next v2 11/16] i40e: remove chatty log messages

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: <AAEA33E297BCAC4B9BB20A7C2DF0AB8D654E35E2@FMSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:04:13 +0000
From:	"Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
	"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next v2 11/16] i40e: remove chatty log messages



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:joe@...ches.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 9:59 AM
> To: Williams, Mitch A
> Cc: Sergei Shtylyov; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; davem@...emloft.net;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; gospo@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com; Brandeburg,
> Jesse
> Subject: Re: [net-next v2 11/16] i40e: remove chatty log messages
> 
> On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 17:40 +0000, Williams, Mitch A wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sergei Shtylyov [mailto:sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com]
> []
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c
> []
> > > > @@ -2988,21 +2988,11 @@ static int i40e_vsi_control_tx(struct i40e_vsi
> > > *vsi, bool enable)
> > > >   		} while (j-- && ((tx_reg >> I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_REQ_SHIFT)
> > > >   			       ^ (tx_reg >> I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_SHIFT)) &
> 1);
> > > >
> > > > -		if (enable) {
> > > > -			/* is STAT set ? */
> > > > -			if ((tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK)) {
> > > > -				dev_info(&pf->pdev->dev,
> > > > -					 "Tx %d already enabled\n", i);
> > > > +		/* Skip if the queue is already in the requested state */
> > > > +		if (enable && (tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
> > > >   				continue;
> > >
> > >     This line seems over-indented now.
> > >
> > > > -			}
> > > > -		} else {
> > > > -			/* is !STAT set ? */
> > > > -			if (!(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK)) {
> > > > -				dev_info(&pf->pdev->dev,
> > > > -					 "Tx %d already disabled\n", i);
> > > > +		if (!enable && !(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
> > > >   				continue;
> > >
> > >     This one too.
> []
> > Sergei, if you look at the source instead of the patch, you'll see
> > that these are correct. The whole thing is inside a for loop, so it
> > should properly be indented two tabs.
> 
> I looked at the source.
> Both continue statements _are_ overly indented.
> 4 tabs should be 3.
> 
> Also, this code is inconsistent and might be
> nicer using the same form:
> 
> 		/* Skip if the queue is already in the requested state */
> 		if (enable && (tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
> 			continue;
> 		if (!enable && !(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
> 			continue;
> 
> [...]
> 
> 		/* wait for the change to finish */
> 		for (j = 0; j < 10; j++) {
> 			tx_reg = rd32(hw, I40E_QTX_ENA(pf_q));
> 			if (enable) {
> 				if ((tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
> 					break;
> 			} else {
> 				if (!(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
> 					break;
> 			}
> 
> Perhaps the first form should be like the second
> 
> 	if (enable) {
> 		if (tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK)
> 			continue;
> 	} else {
> 		if (!(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
> 			continue;
> 	}
> 
> or maybe both should be
> 
> 	bool mask = tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK;
> 	if (enable ^ mask)
> 

Yeah, I see the messed up indent now. Jeff's going to fix and resend.

I see what you mean about the inconsistent logic. Since it's not crucial, I think I'd prefer to fix this in a separate patch in the future. (I'll implement it today, but it takes a while to get through our internal validation process.)

-Mitch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html