netdev - Re: [PATCH v10 03/20] dlb: add resource and device initialization

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]

Date:   Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:13:24 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Chen, Mike Ximing" <mike.ximing.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com" 
        <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Gage Eads <gage.eads@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 03/20] dlb: add resource and device initialization

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 01:33:24AM +0000, Chen, Mike Ximing wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:54:06AM -0600, Mike Ximing Chen wrote:
> > > +
> > > +#include "dlb_bitmap.h"
> > > +
> > > +#define BITS_SET(x, val, mask)	(x = ((x) & ~(mask))     \
> > > +				 | (((val) << (mask##_LOC)) & (mask)))
> > > +#define BITS_GET(x, mask)       (((x) & (mask)) >> (mask##_LOC))
> > 
> > Why not use the built-in kernel functions for this?  Why are you
> > creating your own?
> >
> FIELD_GET(_mask, _val) and FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val) in include/linux/bitfield.h
> are similar to our BITS_GET() and BITS_SET().  However in our case, mask##_LOC
> is a known constant defined in dlb_regs.h,  so we don't need to use 
> _buildin_ffs(mask) to calculate the location of mask as FIELD_GET() and FIELD_PREP()
> do.  We can still use FIELD_GET and FIELD_PREP, but our macros are a little more 
> efficient. Would it be OK to keep them?

No, please use the kernel-wide proper functions, there's no need for
single tiny driver to be "special" in this regard.  If somehow the
in-kernel functions are not sufficient, it's always better to fix them
up than to go your own way here.

thanks,

greg k-h