netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 05/12] net: dsa: b53: Use a macro to define I/O operations

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: <12153E6A-CB96-4EED-91CE-05604B640927@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:29:38 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 05/12] net: dsa: b53: Use a macro to define I/O operations

On September 19, 2017 7:19:35 AM PDT, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> writes:
>
>> From: Florian Fainelli
>>> Sent: 18 September 2017 22:41
>>> Instead of repeating the same pattern: acquire mutex, read/write,
>release
>>> mutex, define a macro: b53_build_op() which takes the type
>(read|write), I/O
>>> size, and value (scalar or pointer). This helps with fixing bugs
>that could
>>> exit (e.g: missing barrier, lock etc.).
>> ....
>>> +#define b53_build_op(type, op_size, val_type)	\
>>> +static inline int b53_##type##op_size(struct b53_device *dev, u8
>page,		\
>>> +				      u8 reg, val_type val)			\
>>> +{										\
>>> +	int ret;								\
>>> +										\
>>> +	mutex_lock(&dev->reg_mutex);						\
>>> +	ret = dev->ops->type##op_size(dev, page, reg, val);			\
>>> +	mutex_unlock(&dev->reg_mutex);						\
>>> +										\
>>> +	return ret;								\
>>>  }
>>
>> Why separate the 'type' and 'op_size' arguments since they
>> are always pasted together?
>
>For read/write48, the value type is u64.

The way I read David's comment is that instead of calling the macro with read, 48, just combine that in a single argument: read48. I don't have a preference about that and can respin eventually.

-- 
Florian