netdev - Re: [PATH RFC net-next 7/8] net: phy: Replace phy driver features u32 with link

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: <B2A80E09-BDE8-4D36-B4A7-B79493210161@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 16 Sep 2018 09:20:51 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATH RFC net-next 7/8] net: phy: Replace phy driver features u32 with link_mode bitmap

Hi Andrew,

On September 15, 2018 3:30:53 PM PDT, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 02:31:14PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 09/14/18 14:38, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> > This is one step in allowing phylib to make use of link_mode
>bitmaps,
>> > instead of u32 for supported and advertised features. Convert the
>phy
>> > drivers to use bitmaps to indicates the features they support. This
>> > requires some macro magic in order to construct constant bitmaps
>used
>> > to initialise the driver structures.
>> > 
>> > Some new PHY_*_FEATURES are added, to indicate FIBRE is supported,
>and
>> > that all media ports are supported. This is done since bitmaps
>cannot
>> > be ORed together at compile time.
>> > 
>> > Within phylib, the features bitmap is currently turned back into a
>> > u32.  The MAC API to phylib needs to be cleaned up before the core
>of
>> > phylib can be converted to using bitmaps instead of u32.
>> 
>> Nice!
>
>Hi Florian
>
>This is the patch i don't like. I'm hoping somebody can think of a
>better way to initialise a bitmap.

By that you mean having to determine whether you overflow the capacity of an unsigned long storage type and having to put the bits in either unsigned long [0] or [1]? Being able to eliminate the duplication would also be nice, but I cannot think about a smart solution at compile time that would avoid doing that.
-- 
Florian