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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:47:39 +0800 From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> CC: mpm@...enic.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, gospo@...hat.com, nhorman@...driver.com, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, fubar@...ibm.com, jmoyer@...hat.com Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 1/3] netpoll: add generic support for bridge and bonding devices David Miller wrote: > From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com> > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:13:43 +0800 > >> Matt Mackall wrote: >>> Seems like a lot of interface for something to be used by only a >>> couple >>> core drivers. Hopefully Dave has an opinion here. >>> >> Yeah, I worry about this too, maybe we can group those methods >> for netpoll together into another struct, and just put a pointer >> here? > > This looks like it's tackled at the wrong layer, to be honest. > > Teaching all of these layers about eachother's states is > going to end up being a nightmare in the end. > > All of this "where is the npinfo" business can be handled > generically in net/core/dev.c I think, with none of these > callbacks. > > For example, something like "if dev lacks ->npinfo, check > it's master". This is a good point! I haven't tried but certainly this is worthy a try. Ideally those callbacks can be all removed, but I don't know if this is true practically. ;) I will try. > > Another thing, I wouldn't iterate over all devices, like I > see in the bonding poll controller method. Just whichever > one supports netpoll you see first, use it and exit > immediately. Don't send it to every single port, I can't > see how that might be desirable or useful. Yeah, for bonding case, probably. But for bridge case, I think we still need to check all, right? Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists