On Thu Jan 29, 2026 at 9:20 AM JST, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Wed Jan 28, 2026 at 4:14 PM CET, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> On 1/28/2026 5:53 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>> On Mon Jan 26, 2026 at 9:23 PM CET, Joel Fernandes wrote: >>>> @@ -267,7 +264,12 @@ fn new_fwsec(dev: &Device<device::Bound>, bios: >>>> &Vbios, cmd: FwsecCommand) -> Re >>>> let ucode = bios.fwsec_image().ucode(&desc)?; >>>> let mut dma_object = DmaObject::from_data(dev, ucode)?; >>>> >>>> - let hdr_offset = usize::from_safe_cast(desc.imem_load_size() + >>>> desc.interface_offset()); >>>> + // Compute hdr_offset = imem_load_size + interface_offset. >>> >>> I do get the idea behind those comments, but are we sure that's really a >>> good >>> idea? How do we ensure to keep them up to date in case we have to change the >>> code? >>> >>> If we really want this, I'd at least chose a common syntax, e.g. >>> >>> // CALC: `imem_load_size + interface_offset` >>> >>> without the variable name the resulting value is assigned to. >>> >>> But I'd rather prefer to just drop those comments. >> The idea of adding these comments was to improve readability. However, I >> can drop them in the v3, that's fine with me. > > Yeah, that's why I wrote "I get the idea". :) But as I write above, I'm > concerned about the comments getting outdated or inconsistent over time. > > Besides that, it more seems like something your favorite editor should help > with > instead. > >> Do you want me to wait for additional comments on this series, or should >> I make the update and repost it? Thanks, > > As mentioned, I tend to think we should just drop them, but I'm happy to hear > some more opinions on this if any.
For safety I would keep something like the // CALC: `imem_load_size + interface_offset` you suggested. From simple operations yes, the code would be obvious, but there are also more involved computations where order matters and it is good to have a reference. These shouldn't change often anyway, and the `CALC:` header catches the attention of anyone who would update them, similarly to a `SAFETY:` comment. If Joel agrees, I will amend the comments accordingly in my staging branch.
