netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] net: rnpgbe: Add build support for rnpgbe

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: <590a44a2-20a2-4a3f-b57f-5bf194712bf2@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 16:37:52 +0100
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Dong Yibo <dong100@...se.com>, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, corbet@....net, 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, richardcochran@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] net: rnpgbe: Add build support for rnpgbe

On 12/08/2025 10:39, Dong Yibo wrote:
> Add build options and doc for mucse.
> Initialize pci device access for MUCSE devices.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dong Yibo <dong100@...se.com>
> ---

[...]

> +/**
> + * rnpgbe_probe - Device initialization routine
> + * @pdev: PCI device information struct
> + * @id: entry in rnpgbe_pci_tbl
> + *
> + * rnpgbe_probe initializes a PF adapter identified by a pci_dev
> + * structure.
> + *
> + * @return: 0 on success, negative on failure
> + **/
> +static int rnpgbe_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +
> +	err = pci_enable_device_mem(pdev);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	err = dma_set_coherent_mask(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(56));
> +	if (err) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> +			"No usable DMA configuration, aborting %d\n", err);
> +		goto err_dma;
> +	}
> +
> +	err = pci_request_mem_regions(pdev, rnpgbe_driver_name);
> +	if (err) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> +			"pci_request_selected_regions failed 0x%x\n", err);
> +		goto err_pci_req;
> +	}
> +
> +	pci_set_master(pdev);
> +	pci_save_state(pdev);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +err_dma:
> +err_pci_req:
> +	pci_disable_device(pdev);
> +	return err;
> +}

Why do you need 2 different labels pointing to the very same line? The
code is not changed through patchset, I see no reasons to have it like
this