netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 8/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: support Block Address setting in hidden registers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 24 Aug 2019 17:36:08 -0400
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
To:     Marek Behun <marek.behun@....cz>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 8/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: support Block
 Address setting in hidden registers

Hi Marek,

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 22:52:16 +0200, Marek Behun <marek.behun@....cz> wrote:
> > There's something I'm having trouble to follow here. This series keeps
> > adding and modifying its own code. Wouldn't it be simpler for everyone
> > if you directly implement the final mv88e6xxx_port_hidden_{read,write}
> > functions taking this block argument, and update the code to switch to it?
> 
> I wanted the commits to be atomic, in the sense that one commit does
> not do three different things at once. Renaming macros is cosmetic
> change, and moving functions to another file is a not a semantic
> change, while adding additional argument to functions is a semantic
> change. I can of course do all in one patch, but I though it would be
> better not to.

You add code, move it, rename it, then change it. It is hard to follow and
read, especially in a series of 9 patches.

I think you could do it the other way around. For example implement the
.serdes_get_lane operation, its users, the mv88e6xxx_port_hidden_* API, its
users, remove or convert old code, etc. Atomicity has nothing to do with it.

> > While at it, I don't really mind the "hidden" name, but is this the name
> > used in the documentation, if any?
> 
> Yes, the registers are indeed named Hidden Registers in documentation.

OK good to know, port_hidden_ makes sense indeed then.


Thanks,

	Vivien