netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] ptp_ocp: implement DPLL ops

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:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 20:24:14 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
Cc:     Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>,
        Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...com>, Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] ptp_ocp: implement DPLL ops

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:11:24 -0700 Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> > > 80-column limit (here and throughout the file)  
> > 
> > I thought this rule was relaxed up to 100-columns?  
> 
> Only in exceptional cases, IIRC.  checkpatch complains too.

Yup, for networking I still prefer 80 chars. 
My field of vision is narrow.

> > > 80 cols, and this should be done before ptp_ocp_complete()
> > > Also, should 'goto out', not return 0 and leak resources.  
> > 
> > I don't think we have to go with error path. Driver itself can work without
> > DPLL device registered, there is no hard dependency. The DPLL device will
> > not be registered and HW could not be configured/monitored via netlink, but
> > could still be usable.  
> 
> Not sure I agree with that - the DPLL device is selected in Kconfig, so
> users would expect to have it present.  I think it makes more sense to
> fail if it cannot be allocated.

+1