netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4] soc: fsl: qbman: FSL_DPAA depends on COMPILE

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: <Zo1UC/grXeIocGu5@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:15:23 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
	kuba@...nel.org, horms@...nel.org, Roy.Pledge@....com,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] soc: fsl: qbman: FSL_DPAA depends on COMPILE_TEST

Hello Vladimir,

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 04:58:11PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:08:05PM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > I thought about a patch like the following (compile tested only). What
> > do you think?
> 
> To be honest, there are several things I don't really like about this
> patch.
> 
> - I really struggled with applying it in the current format. Could you
>   please post the output of git format-patch in the future?

This is the output of `git format-patch` shifted right by a tab.

> - You addressed dpaa_set_coalesce() but not also dpaa_fq_setup()
> - You misrepresented the patch content by saying you only allocate size
>   for online CPUs in the commit message. But you allocate for all
>   possible CPUs.
> - You only kfree(needs_revert) in the error (revert_values) case, but
>   not in the normal (return 0) case.
> - The netdev coding style is to sort the lines with variable
>   declarations in reverse order of line length (they call this "reverse
>   Christmas tree"). Your patch broke that order.
> - You should use kcalloc() instead of kmalloc_array() + memset()
> 
> I have prepared and tested the attached alternative patch on a board and
> I am preparing to submit it myself, if you don't have any objection.

Sure, not a problem. You just asked how that would be possible, and I
decided to craft patch to show what I had in mind. I am glad we have a
way moving forward.

Thanks for solving it.