netdev - Re: [PATCHv4 RFC net-next 1/4] sunvnet: NAPIfy sunvnet

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:	Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:51:03 -0400
From:	David L Stevens <david.stevens@...cle.com>
To:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>,
	davem@...emloft.net, bob.picco@...cle.com, dwight.engen@...cle.com,
	raghuram.kothakota@...cle.com
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 RFC net-next 1/4] sunvnet: NAPIfy sunvnet



On 10/15/2014 02:01 PM, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:

> @@ -482,13 +485,26 @@ static int vnet_walk_rx(struct vnet_port *port, struct vio_dring_state *dr,
>  				return err;
>  			ack_start = -1;
>  		}
> +		if ((*npkts) >= budget) {
> +			send_ack = false;
> +			break;
> +		}
>  	}

I still don't like this-- it's virtually "boolean_variable = true;if (condition) boolean_variable = false".
Yes, it has the extra "break;", but I think it's clearer to say "send an ACK when
we're under budget; don't send an ACK and break when we're over," or:

		send_ack = *npkts < budget;
		if (!send_ack)
			break;

I can live with either way, though.

Acked-by: David L Stevens <david.stevens@...cle.com>

						+-DLS
--
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