netdev - Re: [PATCH 03/15] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx ops support

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: <f8a69fa5-cc3d-4968-8b19-0bdb27e1e917@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 14:00:16 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yibo Dong <dong100@...se.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
	andrew+netdev@...n.ch, gur.stavi@...wei.com, maddy@...ux.ibm.com,
	mpe@...erman.id.au, danishanwar@...com, lee@...ger.us,
	gongfan1@...wei.com, lorenzo@...nel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
	Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com, lukas.bulwahn@...hat.com,
	alexanderduyck@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx ops support

On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 02:39:55PM +0800, Yibo Dong wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 08:13:19PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > >  #define MBX_FEATURE_WRITE_DELAY BIT(1)
> > >  	u32 mbx_feature;
> > >  	/* cm3 <-> pf mbx */
> > > -	u32 cpu_pf_shm_base;
> > > -	u32 pf2cpu_mbox_ctrl;
> > > -	u32 pf2cpu_mbox_mask;
> > > -	u32 cpu_pf_mbox_mask;
> > > -	u32 cpu2pf_mbox_vec;
> > > +	u32 fw_pf_shm_base;
> > > +	u32 pf2fw_mbox_ctrl;
> > > +	u32 pf2fw_mbox_mask;
> > > +	u32 fw_pf_mbox_mask;
> > > +	u32 fw2pf_mbox_vec;
> > 
> > Why is a patch adding a new feature deleting code?
> > 
> Not delete code, 'cpu' here means controller in the chip, not host.
> So, I just rename 'cpu' to 'fw' to avoid confusion.

So, so let me rephrase my point. Why was it not called fw_foo right
from the beginning? You are making the code harder to review by doing
stuff like this. And your code is going to need a lot of review and
revisions because its quality if low if you ask me.

	Andrew