netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/9] net: ethernet: implement OPEN Alliance control transaction interface

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: <92e0a4d4-82fe-4e2f-828e-e9d450cf59ad@microchip.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:15:01 +0000
From: <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>
To: <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <corbet@....net>,
	<Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>, <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <horms@...nel.org>,
	<casper.casan@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com>,
	<Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
	<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/9] net: ethernet: implement OPEN Alliance
 control transaction interface

Hi Andrew,

On 27/10/23 1:16 am, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
>> Still if you feel like using "write" instead of "wnr" and "protect"
>> instead of "prote", I will change them in the next revision.
> 
> There is some value in using names from the standard, if they are
> actually good names. But i guess most developers don't have a copy of
> the standard by there side.
> 
> You actually wrote in the patch:
> 
> +/* Control header */
> +#define CTRL_HDR_DNC           BIT(31)         /* Data-Not-Control */
> +#define CTRL_HDR_HDRB          BIT(30)         /* Received Header Bad */
> +#define CTRL_HDR_WNR           BIT(29)         /* Write-Not-Read */
> +#define CTRL_HDR_AID           BIT(28)         /* Address Increment Disable */
> +#define CTRL_HDR_MMS           GENMASK(27, 24) /* Memory Map Selector */
> 
> The comments suggest you also don't think the names are particularly
> good, otherwise you would not of added comments.
> 
> But if you instead had:
> 
> /* Control header */
> #define CTRL_HDR_DATA_NOT_CTRL           BIT(31)
> #define CTRL_HDR_HDR_RX_BAD              BIT(30)
> #define CTRL_HDR_WRITE                   BIT(29)
> #define CTRL_HDR_ADDR_INC_DISABLE        BIT(28)
> #define CTRL_HDR_MEM_MAP_SELECTOR        GENMASK(27, 24)
> 
> the names are probably sufficient that comments are not needed.  And
> is should be easy for somebody to map these back to the names used in
> the standard.
> 
> This also to some extent comes into the comment about coding style, a
> function does one thing, is short, etc. Short functions tend to have
> less indentation, meaning you can use longer names. And longer names
> are more readable, making the function easier to understand, so it
> does that one thing well.
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I will do it in the next revision.

Best Regards,
Parthiban V
> 
>      Andrew
>