netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/3] RDMA/cxgb4,cxgb4vf,cxgb4i,csiostor: Cleanup macros

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: <20141106.165720.1081314710517375005.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 06 Nov 2014 16:57:20 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hariprasad@...lsio.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, roland@...estorage.com,
	JBottomley@...allels.com, hch@...radead.org,
	swise@...ngridcomputing.com, leedom@...lsio.com,
	praveenm@...lsio.com, anish@...lsio.com, nirranjan@...lsio.com,
	kumaras@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 0/3] RDMA/cxgb4,cxgb4vf,cxgb4i,csiostor:
 Cleanup macros

From: Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:45:10 +0530

> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 14:54:43 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Hariprasad Shenai <hariprasad@...lsio.com>
>> Date: Tue,  4 Nov 2014 08:20:54 +0530
>> 
>> > It's not really the "hardware" which generates these hardware constant symbolic
>> > macros/register defines of course, it's scripts developed by the hardware team.
>> > Various patches have ended up changing the style of the symbolic macros/register
>> > defines and some of them used the macros/register defines that matches the
>> > output of the script from the hardware team.
>> 
>> We've told you that we don't care what format your internal whatever uses
>> for these macros.
>> 
>> We have standards, tastes, and desires and reasons for naming macros
>> in a certain way in upstream kernel code.
>> 
>> I consider it flat out unacceptable to use macros with one letter
>> prefixes like "S_".  You simply should not do this.
>> 
> 
> Okay. We’ll clean up all of the macros to match the files' original style. We
> do need to change the sense of the *_MASK macros since they don’t match how we 
> use them as field tokens.  Also the *_SHIFT, *_MASK and *_GET names are
> sucking up space and making lines wrap unnecessarily, creating readability
> problems.  Can we change these to *_S, *_M and *_G?  E.g.:

That's fine.