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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:43:44 -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 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Simplify lan9303_xxx_packet_processing() usage Hi Egil, Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no> writes: >>> + for (p = 0; p <= 2; p++) { >> >> Exclusive limits are often prefer, i.e. 'p < 3'. >> > OK, that can be nice when I later introduce LAN9303_NUM_PORTS = 3. This is indeed another reason what exclusive limits are prefered ;-) >>> + 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'. >> > > But 'ret' is used throughout the rest of the file. Is it not better to > be locally consistent? You are correct, I was missing a bit of context here. >>> 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 fall through, the change is purely non-functional. > > You are perhaps thinking of the patch in my first series where I removed > disable of port 0. I have put that on hold. Juergen says that the > mainline driver works out of the box for him. So I will investigate > that problem bit more. Correct! I misread, my bad. This is indeed cleaner with this patch. With the LAN9303_NUM_PORTS limit and detailed commit message, the patch LGTM. Thanks, Vivien
Powered by blists - more mailing lists