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]

Message-ID: <a4defe2e-143d-0dba-03a1-cb23082ce673@novek.ru>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:31:55 +0100
From:   Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
Cc:     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 29.06.2022 04:24, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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.
> 
Ok, no problem, will follow strict rules next time.


>>>> 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

Ok, it's not a big deal to make it fail in case of DPLL error, will do it in 
next iteration.