netdev - Re: [net v6 1/8] i40e: main driver core

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 8 Sep 2013 01:01:36 +0200
From:	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
To:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
	"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
	"Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@...el.com>,
	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [net v6 1/8] i40e: main driver core

Brandeburg, Jesse <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com> :
> On Sat, 2013-09-07 at 08:44 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> 
> > Nitpicking ... at some point in time i40e_status should be removed plus
> > I40E_ERR_PARAM, I40E_SUCCESS, I40E_ERR_NO_MEMORY and the like, as we have
> > int and -EINVAL, 0, -ENOMEM for that. ;-)
> 
> First, thanks Daniel for taking the time to review.
> 
> Those are a result of our files that are shared across OSes, as not all
> OSes have -ENOMEM etc, we also have a lot of status codes the kernel
> doesn't have.  That said, when there is a 1-1 relationship the
> replacements should be made.  

It should always be made. You have kept ignoring it since june (see
Ben Hutchings's comment on 2013/06/19).

Where did you see that rules changed and the linux kernel should care
about OS shared code ?

- the patchkit does not include a Makefile to compile from patch #1
- it would not compile since patch #1 depends on stuff that appears
  later (see i40e_hw or i40e_lump_tracking for instance).
- some of the I40E_ERR_PARAM error can't happen or are assert() in
  disguise that could / should instead BUG(). There is no reason to
  confuse these with runtime failures, especially as code gets really
  tested on hardware.

I could understand it from some newly introduced company but it's
a bit deceptive from Intel. :o/

-- 
Ueimor
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html