netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/7] net: pcs: xpcs: yet more cleanups

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: <fb17dd76-b2ac-465c-b6ff-6633ac5f732a@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:58:03 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/7] net: pcs: xpcs: yet more cleanups

On 10/23/24 13:17, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:52:17PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>> I've found yet more potential for cleanups in the XPCS driver.
>>
>> The first patch switches to using generic register definitions.
>>
>> Next, there's an overly complex bit of code in xpcs_link_up_1000basex()
>> which can be simplified down to a simple if() statement.
>>
>> Then, rearrange xpcs_link_up_1000basex() to separate out the warnings
>> from the functional bit.
>>
>> Next, realising that the functional bit is just the helper function we
>> already have and are using in the SGMII version of this function,
>> switch over to that.
>>
>> We can now see that xpcs_link_up_1000basex() and xpcs_link_up_sgmii()
>> are basically functionally identical except for the warnings, so merge
>> the two functions.
>>
>> Next, xpcs_config_usxgmii() seems misnamed, so rename it to follow the
>> established pattern.
>>
>> Lastly, "return foo();" where foo is a void function and the function
>> being returned from is also void is a weird programming pattern.
>> Replace this with something more conventional.
>>
>> With these changes, we see yet another reduction in the amount of
>> code in this driver.
>>
>>  drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.c | 134 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>  drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.h |  12 ----
>>  2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> 
> It's been almost a week, and this series has not been applied.

Yep, we are lagging a little behind our PW queue due to limited capacity.

> First,
> Jakub's NIPA bot failed to spot the cover message that patchwork picked
> up - not my problem.
> 
> Now, I find that patchwork says "changes requested". What changes? No
> one has replied asking for any changes to this series. Serge did
> reply saying he would test it, and he has now done so, and replied
> with his tested-by.

I agree there is no reason for the 'changes requested' status, I guess
such change happened due to some miscommunication between me and Andrew.
Let me resurrect the series in PW.

I'll go over that soon.

Thanks,

Paolo