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: <9557ecbe-ea07-45f0-b467-151e61054e02@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 17:52:04 -0400
From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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 8/5/25 17:32, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, at one point that was true and then I made a some edits. I will
update the commit message.

>> +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.

OK

>>  		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.

The main purpose of that hunk is to remove the `goto cleanup_mdio`. The
dev_err change is just because I was "in the area".

>>  		}
>>  		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.

Will do.

--Sean