netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: simplify a check in phy_check_link

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: <ef591e21-9865-492a-a0d7-3ae6dfff6508@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:44:34 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: simplify a check in
 phy_check_link_status

On 07.03.2024 22:16, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> Handling case err == 0 in the other branch allows to simplify the
> code. In addition I assume in "err & phydev->eee_cfg.tx_lpi_enabled"
> it should have been a logical and operator. It works as expected also
> with the bitwise and, but using a bitwise and with a bool value looks
> ugly to me.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/phy/phy.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> index c3a0a5ee5..c4236564c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> @@ -985,10 +985,10 @@ static int phy_check_link_status(struct phy_device *phydev)
>  		phydev->state = PHY_RUNNING;
>  		err = genphy_c45_eee_is_active(phydev,
>  					       NULL, NULL, NULL);
> -		if (err < 0)
> +		if (err <= 0)
>  			phydev->enable_tx_lpi = false;
>  		else
> -			phydev->enable_tx_lpi = (err & phydev->eee_cfg.tx_lpi_enabled);
> +			phydev->enable_tx_lpi = phydev->eee_cfg.tx_lpi_enabled;
>  
>  		phy_link_up(phydev);
>  	} else if (!phydev->link && phydev->state != PHY_NOLINK) {

This patch was set to "changes requested" in patchwork. The comment that this refers to
(make two patches a series) isn't applicable and I answered to it here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/d6ee6353-5cb0-4751-9b69-255ab62e6b56@gmail.com/T/
Whatever is better for you: If it can still be applied, fine. Otherwise I'd resubmit
after the merge window.