lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] crypto: caam: fix error reporting
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:57:57 +0200
Cristian Stoica <cristian.stoica@freescale.com> wrote:

> Hi Kim,
>
> >> Actually, our static code analyzer did not see this one.
> >
> > ok, so the patch technically isn't fixing anything broken, then.
>
> Are you saying the code isn't broken _because_ a static tool analyser
> did not see anything wrong here?

no: I'm saying there was no symptom - something I'd expect to gather
from the original commit message.

> > the new code just added a new condition, which doesn't invalidate
> > the comment. And simply removing the comment as opposed to amending
> > it is a bit overkill.
>
> You are partially right, but will the staggering lack of comments in the
> caam driver be fixed by duplicating a cascade of three ifs into english?

well, given that preamble, it would be better than removing the
existing two :), but the simpler version makes it a moot point.

> >> It is indeed simpler but does it consider also the missing error codes
> >> at index 1 and 5? Just checking for an upper bound is not enough.
> >
> > no, the existing code already handles that. Note that newer
> > documentation fills the 1 and 5 slots, too.
>
> If you have the new error codes please send them to me for an update.

surely you have access to the documentation, if not, let me know.

> >> On the other hand, if the error field is only three bits wide instead of
> >> four as stated by the documentation, a better fix means using a three
> >> bit mask instead of reporting an invalid error code.
> >
> > true, but then we'd introduce a direct discrepancy with the
> > documentation, and thus h/w.
>
> You basically ask me to agree that if there are no _documented_ error
> codes between 0x8 and 0xf then I should trust that they will never come
> up on a 4 bit field.

they may, depending on future revs of the h/w, but that's not what
this patch is about.

> Do you want me to drop the patch and pretend there is nothing to see?

no, fixing potential bugs preemptively is fine; I'd just like to
know that's the case: it wasn't clear from the original commit
message whether the problem occurred on a new h/w revision, in which
case I'd have like to have seen the driver updated with support for
the new error codes.

Kim


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-04 18:21    [W:0.087 / U:1.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site