netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v2 5/9] net: dsa: qca8k: convert qca8k to regmap helper

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: <20211122022211.jqlo4pts46gyavca@skbuf>
Date:   Mon, 22 Nov 2021 04:22:11 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 5/9] net: dsa: qca8k: convert qca8k to regmap
 helper

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 02:56:58AM +0100, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > Maybe you could keep qca8k_read and qca8k_write and make them return
> > regmap_read(priv->regmap, ...), this could reduce the patch's delta,
> > make future bugfix patches conflict less with this change, etc etc.
> > What do you think?
> 
> Problem is that many function will have to be moved to a separate file
> (for the common stuff) and they won't have qca8k_read/write/rmw...
> So converting everything to regmap would be handy as you drop the
> extra functions.
> But I see how reworking the read/write/rmw would massively reduce the
> patch delta.
> 
> When we will have to split the code, we will have this problem again and
> we will have to decide if continue using the qca8k_read/write... or drop
> them and switch to regmap.
> 
> So... yes i'm stuck as if we want to save some conflicts we will have to
> carry the extra function forver I think.
> (Wonder if the conflict problem will just be """solved""" with the code
> split as someone will have to rework the patch anyway as the function
> will be located on a different file)

Yeah, well, if you have to split then you have to split. It probably
won't be pretty, with a lot of code added for v5.16 and now for v5.17,
so it hasn't had time to reach to a larger pool of users and get cleaned
of bugs which you didn't notice. But what can you do. Other than wait
for a few months for the code to stabilize (which is counterproductive
in its own ways), probably nothing.