| 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, 14 Aug 2017 16:12:38 +0000
From: <Bryan.Whitehead@...rochip.com>
To: <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 1/3] Add LAN743X driver
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 6:12 PM
> To: Bryan Whitehead - C21958
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; UNGLinuxDriver
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] Add LAN743X driver
>
> From: <Bryan.Whitehead@...rochip.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:47:57 +0000
>
> > +static int lan743x_pci_init(struct lan743x_adapter *adapter,
> > + struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > +{
> > + int ret = -ENODEV;
> > + int bars = 0;
> > + struct lan743x_pci *pci = &adapter->pci;
>
> Please always order local variable declarations from longest to shortest line
> (reverse christmas tree format).
>
> > + pci_set_master(pdev);
> > +
> > +clean_up:
> > + if (ret) {
>
> It is more intuitive to structure this like:
>
> return 0;
>
> clean_up:
> ...
>
> > +static u8 __iomem *lan743x_pci_get_bar_address(struct lan743x_adapter
> *adapter,
> > + int bar_index)
> > +{
> > + u8 __iomem *result = NULL;
> > + struct lan743x_pci *pci = &adapter->pci;
>
> Reverse christmas tree ordering please.
>
> > +static int lan743x_csr_light_reset(struct lan743x_adapter *adapter) {
> > + int result = -EIO;
> > + u32 data;
> > + unsigned long timeout;
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +static inline void lan743x_csr_write(
> > + struct lan743x_adapter *adapter, int offset, u32 data)
>
> Don't do the argument formatting like this please, it looks terrible.
>
> This:
>
> static inline void lan743x_csr_write(struct lan743x_adapter *adapter,
> int offset, u32 data)
>
> works much better.
>
> > +static void lan743x_intr_union_isr(void *context, u32 int_sts) {
> > + struct lan743x_adapter *adapter = (struct lan743x_adapter
> *)context;
>
> Casts from void pointers are never necessary, that's the whole point of void
> pointers. Please remove this cast.
>
> > +static irqreturn_t lan743x_vector_isr(int irq, void *ptr) {
> > + irqreturn_t result = IRQ_NONE;
> > + struct lan743x_vector *vector = (struct lan743x_vector *)ptr;
> > + struct lan743x_adapter *adapter = NULL;
> > + u32 int_sts;
> > + u32 mask;
>
> Reverse christmas tree ordering please.
>
> > +static int lan743x_intr_open(struct lan743x_adapter *adapter) {
> > + int ret = -ENODEV;
> > + struct lan743x_intr *intr = &adapter->intr;
> > + int index = 0;
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +static int lan743x_dp_wait_till_not_busy(struct lan743x_adapter
> > +*adapter) {
> > + int i;
> > + u32 dp_sel = 0;
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +static int lan743x_dp_write(struct lan743x_adapter *adapter,
> > + u32 select, u32 addr, u32 length, u32 *buf) {
> > + struct lan743x_dp *dp = &adapter->dp;
> > + int ret = -EIO;
> > + int i;
> > + u32 dp_sel;
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK
> > +static int lan743x_gpio_reserve_ptp_output(struct lan743x_adapter
> *adapter,
> > + int bit, int ptp_channel)
> > +{
> > + struct lan743x_gpio *gpio = &adapter->gpio;
> > + int ret = -EBUSY;
> > + unsigned long irq_flags = 0;
> > + int bit_mask = BIT(bit);
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK
> > +static int lan743x_ptpci_adjfreq(struct ptp_clock_info *ptpci, s32
> > +delta_ppb) {
> > + u32 u32_delta = 0;
> > + u64 u64_delta = 0;
> > + u32 lan743x_rate_adj = 0;
> > + bool positive = true;
> > + struct lan743x_ptp *ptp = LAN743X_PTPCI_TO_PTP;
> > + struct lan743x_adapter *adapter = LAN743X_PTP_TO_ADAPTER;
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK
> > +static int lan743x_ptpci_adjtime(struct ptp_clock_info *ptpci, s64
> > +delta) {
> > + struct lan743x_ptp *ptp = LAN743X_PTPCI_TO_PTP;
> > + struct lan743x_adapter *adapter = LAN743X_PTP_TO_ADAPTER;
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK
> > +static int lan743x_ptpci_gettime64(struct ptp_clock_info *ptpci,
> > + struct timespec64 *ts)
> > +{
> > + struct lan743x_ptp *ptp = LAN743X_PTPCI_TO_PTP;
> > + struct lan743x_adapter *adapter = LAN743X_PTP_TO_ADAPTER;
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK
> > +static int lan743x_ptpci_settime64(struct ptp_clock_info *ptpci,
> > + const struct timespec64 *ts)
> > +{
> > + struct lan743x_ptp *ptp = LAN743X_PTPCI_TO_PTP;
> > + struct lan743x_adapter *adapter = LAN743X_PTP_TO_ADAPTER;
>
> Likewise.
>
> Also, these X_TO_Y macros are terrible. If you aren an accessor like that,
> make it a nice inline function declared in a header file with lowercase letter
> which actually does type checking on the pointer variable which is
> dereferenced.
>
> > + if (ts) {
> > + u32 seconds = 0;
> > + u32 nano_seconds = 0;
>
> Reverse christmas tree ordering please.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK
> > +static int lan743x_ptp_enable_pps(struct lan743x_adapter *adapter) {
> > + struct lan743x_ptp *ptp = &adapter->ptp;
> > + int result = -ENODEV;
> > + u32 current_seconds = 0;
> > + u32 target_seconds = 0;
> > + u32 general_config = 0;
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +static void lan743x_ptp_isr(void *context) {
> > + int enable_flag = 1;
> > + u32 ptp_int_sts = 0;
> > + struct lan743x_adapter *adapter = (struct lan743x_adapter
> *)context;
> > + struct lan743x_ptp *ptp = NULL;
>
> Likewise. And again please remove the void pointer cast.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK
> > +static int lan743x_ptp_reserve_event_ch(struct lan743x_adapter
> > +*adapter) {
> > + struct lan743x_ptp *ptp = &adapter->ptp;
> > + int index = 0;
> > + int result = -ENODEV;
>
> Likewise.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK
> > +static void lan743x_ptp_clock_step(struct lan743x_adapter *adapter,
> > + s64 time_step_ns)
> > +{
> > + struct lan743x_ptp *ptp = &adapter->ptp;
> > + u64 abs_time_step_ns = 0;
> > + s32 seconds = 0;
> > + u32 nano_seconds = 0;
>
> Likewise.
>
> This thing is huge, I'm not reviewing any more of this enormous submission.
David,
Thanks for the feedback.
I will work on your suggestions, and submit again later.
Bryan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists