netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx

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: <eafb8874-a7a3-4028-a4ad-d71fc5689813@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 17:14:15 +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 4/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx_fw support

On 12/08/2025 10:39, Dong Yibo wrote:
> Initialize basic mbx_fw ops, such as get_capability, reset phy
> and so on.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dong Yibo <dong100@...se.com>
> +static int mucse_fw_send_cmd_wait(struct mucse_hw *hw,
> +				  struct mbx_fw_cmd_req *req,
> +				  struct mbx_fw_cmd_reply *reply)
> +{
> +	int len = le16_to_cpu(req->datalen) + MBX_REQ_HDR_LEN;
> +	int retry_cnt = 3;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&hw->mbx.lock);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +	err = hw->mbx.ops->write_posted(hw, (u32 *)req,
> +					L_WD(len));
 > +	if (err) {> +		mutex_unlock(&hw->mbx.lock);
> +		return err;
> +	}

it might look a bit cleaner if you add error label and have unlock code
once in the end of the function...

> +	do {
> +		err = hw->mbx.ops->read_posted(hw, (u32 *)reply,
> +					       L_WD(sizeof(*reply)));
> +		if (err) {
> +			mutex_unlock(&hw->mbx.lock);
> +			return err;
> +		}
> +	} while (--retry_cnt >= 0 && reply->opcode != req->opcode);
> +	mutex_unlock(&hw->mbx.lock);
> +	if (retry_cnt < 0 || reply->error_code)
> +		return -EIO;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * mucse_fw_get_capability - Get hw abilities from fw
> + * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
> + * @abil: pointer to the hw_abilities structure
> + *
> + * mucse_fw_get_capability tries to get hw abilities from
> + * hw.
> + *
> + * @return: 0 on success, negative on failure
> + **/
> +static int mucse_fw_get_capability(struct mucse_hw *hw,
> +				   struct hw_abilities *abil)
> +{
> +	struct mbx_fw_cmd_reply reply;
> +	struct mbx_fw_cmd_req req;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	memset(&req, 0, sizeof(req));
> +	memset(&reply, 0, sizeof(reply));

probably

	struct mbx_fw_cmd_reply reply = {};
	struct mbx_fw_cmd_req req = {};

will look better. in the other functions as well..