netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Simplify lan9303_xxx_packet

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: <87379c4sfe.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:00:53 -0400
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:     Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>, andrew@...n.ch,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Cc:     Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Simplify lan9303_xxx_packet_processing() usage

Hi Egil,

A few nitpicks below for lan9303_disable_processing.

Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no> writes:

>  static int lan9303_disable_processing(struct lan9303 *chip)
>  {
> -	int ret;
> +	int p;
>  
> -	ret = lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, 0);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -	ret = lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, 1);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -	return lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, 2);
> +	for (p = 0; p <= 2; p++) {

Exclusive limits are often prefer, i.e. 'p < 3'.

> +		int ret;
> +
> +		ret = lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, p);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;

When any non-zero return code means an error, we usually see 'err'
instead of 'ret'.

> +	}

blank line before return statments are appreciated.

> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static int lan9303_check_device(struct lan9303 *chip)
> @@ -760,7 +761,6 @@ static int lan9303_port_enable(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>  	/* enable internal packet processing */
>  	switch (port) {
>  	case 1:
> -		return lan9303_enable_packet_processing(chip, port);

Is this deletion intentional? The commit message does not explain this.

When possible, it is appreciated to separate functional from
non-functional changes. For example one commit adding the loop in
lan9303_disable_processing and another one to not enable/disable packet
processing on port 1.

>  	case 2:
>  		return lan9303_enable_packet_processing(chip, port);
>  	default:
> @@ -779,13 +779,9 @@ static void lan9303_port_disable(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>  	/* disable internal packet processing */
>  	switch (port) {
>  	case 1:
> -		lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, port);
> -		lan9303_phy_write(ds, chip->phy_addr_sel_strap + 1,
> -				  MII_BMCR, BMCR_PDOWN);
> -		break;
>  	case 2:
>  		lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, port);
> -		lan9303_phy_write(ds, chip->phy_addr_sel_strap + 2,
> +		lan9303_phy_write(ds, chip->phy_addr_sel_strap + port,
>  				  MII_BMCR, BMCR_PDOWN);
>  		break;

Thanks,

        Vivien