netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 6/7] net: axienet: Rearrange lifetime functions

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: <69b08e90-ae99-43fd-9779-dd5497a26e1f@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 23:32:13 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
Cc: Radhey Shyam Pandey <radhey.shyam.pandey@....com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 6/7] net: axienet: Rearrange lifetime
 functions

On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 11:34:55AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> Rearrange the lifetime functions (probe, remove, etc.) in preparation
> for the next commit. No functional change intended.

There is a lot going on in this patch. Can it be broken up a bit more?

The phase "No functional change intended" generally means, its the
same code, just in a different place in the files. This is not true of
this patch.

> +struct axienet_common {
> +	struct platform_device *pdev;
> +
> +	struct clk *axi_clk;
> +
> +	struct mutex reset_lock;

>  static inline void axienet_lock_mii(struct axienet_local *lp)
>  {
> -	if (lp->mii_bus)
> -		mutex_lock(&lp->mii_bus->mdio_lock);
> +	mutex_lock(&lp->cp->reset_lock);

This lock is different to the bus lock. This is definitely not a "no
functional change".

Please make this lock change a patch of its own, with a good commit
message which considers the consequences of this change of lock.

>  		if (!np) {
> -			dev_err(dev, "pcs-handle (preferred) or phy-handle required for 1000BaseX/SGMII\n");
> -			ret = -EINVAL;
> -			goto cleanup_mdio;
> +			dev_err(dev,
> +				"pcs-handle (preferred) or phy-handle required for 1000BaseX/SGMII\n");
> +			return -EINVAL;

That looks like a whitespace change. This is a "No functional change
intended" sort of patch. You can collect all such whitespace changes
into one patch.

>  		}
>  		lp->pcs_phy = of_mdio_find_device(np);
> -		np1 = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "lpu");
> +		np1 = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "cpu");

Interesting. Maybe you should review your own patches.


    Andrew

---
pw-bot: cr