netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 9/9] net: ipa: don't disable NAPI in suspend

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: <241d4f55-318c-1e1b-f97e-bd60ef2982f0@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 30 Jan 2021 22:30:53 -0600
From:   Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, elder@...nel.org,
        evgreen@...omium.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        cpratapa@...eaurora.org,
        Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 9/9] net: ipa: don't disable NAPI in suspend

On 1/30/21 1:22 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:25:16 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>> @@ -894,12 +894,16 @@ int gsi_channel_start(struct gsi *gsi, u32 channel_id)
>>>          struct gsi_channel *channel = &gsi->channel[channel_id];
>>>          int ret;
>>>
>>> -       /* Enable the completion interrupt */
>>> +       /* Enable NAPI and the completion interrupt */
>>> +       napi_enable(&channel->napi);
>>>          gsi_irq_ieob_enable_one(gsi, channel->evt_ring_id);
>>>
>>>          ret = __gsi_channel_start(channel, true);
>>> -       if (ret)
>>> -               gsi_irq_ieob_disable_one(gsi, channel->evt_ring_id);
>>> +       if (!ret)
>>> +               return 0;
>>> +
>>> +       gsi_irq_ieob_disable_one(gsi, channel->evt_ring_id);
>>> +       napi_disable(&channel->napi);
>>>
>>>          return ret;
>>>   }
>>
>> subjective, but easier to parse when the normal control flow is linear
>> and the error path takes a branch (or goto, if reused).
> 
> FWIW - fully agreed, I always thought this was part of the kernel
> coding style.

That's fine.  I will post a v2 of the series to fix this up.
I'll wait a bit (maybe until Monday morning), in case there's
any other input on the series to address.

Thanks both of you for your comments.

					-Alex