lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] media: si2168: Refactor command setup code
Em Sat, 13 Jul 2019 00:11:12 +0200
Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr> escreveu:

> On 12/07/2019 19:45, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>
> > Brad Love <brad@nextdimension.cc> escreveu:
> >
> >> On 04/07/2019 05.33, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> >>
> >>> +#define CMD_SETUP(cmd, args, rlen) \
> >>> + cmd_setup(cmd, args, sizeof(args) - 1, rlen)
> >>> +
> >>
> >> This is only a valid helper if args is a null terminated string. It just
> >> so happens that every instance in this driver is, but that could be a
> >> silent pitfall if someone used a u8 array with this macro.
> >
> > Actually, it is uglier than that. If one writes something like:
> >
> > char buf[20];
> >
> > buf[0] = 0x20;
> > buf[1] = 0x03;
> >
> > CMD_SETUP(cmd, buf, 0);
> >
> > // some other init, up to 5 values, then another CMD_SETUP()
>
> I'm not sure what you mean in the // comment.
> What kind of init? Why up to 5 values? Why another CMD_SETUP?

I mean that the same buffer could be re-used to do something like:

char buf[20];

buf[0] = 0x20;
buf[1] = 0x03;

CMD_SETUP(cmd, buf, 0); // write size here should be 2

buf[2] = 0x04
buf[3] = 0x00
buf[4] = 0x05

CMD_SETUP(cmd, buf, 0); // write size here should be 5

This kind of pattern happens on other drivers and someone may
end needing something like that at this driver on some future.

> > sizeof() will evaluate to 20, and not to 2, with would be the
> > expected buffer size, and it will pass 18 random values.
> >
> > IMHO, using sizeof() here is a very bad idea.
>
> You may have a point...
> (Though I'm not proposing a kernel API function, merely code
> refactoring for a single file that's unlikely to change going
> forward.)

Yes, I know, but we had already some bugs due to the usage of
sizeof() on similar macros at drivers in the past.

> It's also bad form to repeat the cmd size (twice) when the compiler
> can figure it out automatically for string literals (which is 95%
> of the use-cases).
>
> I can drop the macro, and just use the helper...

The helper function sounds fine.

>
> Or maybe there's a GCC extension to test that an argument is a
> string literal...

If this could be evaluated by some advanced macro logic that
would work not only with gcc but also with clang, then a
macro that does what you proposed could be useful.

There are some ways to check the type of a macro argument, but I'm
not sure if are there any way for it to distinguish between a
string constant from a char * array.

Thanks,
Mauro

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-13 12:04    [W:0.044 / U:12.128 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site