netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 4/9] net: enetc: include MAC Merge / FP registers in register dump

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:03:13 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@....com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
        Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>,
        Pranavi Somisetty <pranavi.somisetty@....com>,
        Harini Katakam <harini.katakam@....com>,
        Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@...leder-embedded.com>,
        Ferenc Fejes <ferenc.fejes@...csson.com>,
        Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 4/9] net: enetc: include MAC Merge / FP
 registers in register dump

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 07:58:52PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:38:00PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > +	if (hw->port && !!(priv->si->hw_features & ENETC_SI_F_QBU))
> > 
> > nit: I think you could make the condition.
> > 
> > 	if (hw->port && priv->si->hw_features & ENETC_SI_F_QBU)
> > 
> > which would be consistent with the condition in the next hunk.
> > 
> > > +	if (priv->si->hw_features & ENETC_SI_F_QBU) {
> 
> Maybe, but it generates the exact same object code (tested with
> "make drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_ethtool.lst").
> 
> When I'm debugging, I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist when it comes
> to operator precedence (& vs &&), and so, "A && B & C" doesn't read
> particularly well to me, and would be one of my first suspects at
> hiding a bug. I do know it would have worked in this case though,
> and that modern gcc/clang usually complains about suspicious/
> unintuitive precedence.

Thanks, I guess it's subjective.
And I do understand your point regarding & vs &&.

No need to resend because of this
(or update the code at all if that is your choice).