From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] mscan: zero accidentally copied register content
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:09:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4E8D7065.8040905@grandegger.com>
References: <4E8C78E8.3010605@hartkopp.net> <20111005155127.GB13794@pengutronix.de> <4E8C8175.2040202@hartkopp.net> <4E8D528D.8020607@hartkopp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andre Naujoks <nautsch@gmail.com>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]:57708 "EHLO
	mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S935693Ab1JFJKC (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 6 Oct 2011 05:10:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4E8D528D.8020607@hartkopp.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Oliver,

On 10/06/2011 09:02 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 10/05/11 18:10, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> 
>> On 10/05/11 17:51, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>>>> +		/* zero accidentally copied register content at odd DLCs */
>>>> +		if (frame->can_dlc & 1)
>>>> +			frame->data[frame->can_dlc] = 0;
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>  	out_8(&regs->canrflg, MSCAN_RXF);
>>>
>>> Nice catch, but wouldn't it be more elegant to never have an invalid byte
>>> in the first place?
>>>
>>> if (can_dlc & 1)
>>> 	*payload = in_be16() & mask;
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hm, then i would rather think about changing the for() statement and to read
>> byte-by-byte instead of the current in_be16() usage with the 16bit access
>> drawbacks ...
>>
> 
> 
> I think if one would like to rework the 16bit register access (which is used
> in the rx path /and/ in the tx path also) this should go via net-next after
> some discussion and testing.

Why do you want to change 16-bit accesses in general? They are faster
than two 8 bit accesses. 

> IMHO this fix is small and clear and especially not risky. I wonder if
> reworking the 16 bit register access is worth the effort?

I would prefer:

 	if (!(frame->can_id & CAN_RTR_FLAG)) {
 		void __iomem *data = &regs->rx.dsr1_0;
 		u16 *payload = (u16 *)frame->data;
 
 		for (i = 0; i < frame->can_dlc / 2; i++) {
 			*payload++ = in_be16(data);
 			data += 2 + _MSCAN_RESERVED_DSR_SIZE;
 		}
		/* copy remaining byte */
		if (frame->can_dlc & 1)
			frame->data[frame->can_dlc - 1] = in_8(data);
 	}

Wolfgang.