netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 02/18] switchdev: flesh out get/set attr ops

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

Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:00:20 -0700
From:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:	"Arad, Ronen" <ronen.arad@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/18] switchdev: flesh out get/set attr ops

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 08:32:09PM CEST, ronen.arad@...el.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org] On
>>>Behalf Of sfeldma@...il.com
>>>Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:40 AM
>>>To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>>>Cc: jiri@...nulli.us; roopa@...ulusnetworks.com; linux@...ck-us.net;
>>>f.fainelli@...il.com
>>>Subject: [PATCH net-next 02/18] switchdev: flesh out get/set attr ops
>>>
>>>From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
>>>

[cut]

>>>+     err = _swdev_port_attr_set(dev, attr);
>>>+     if (err && !get_err && !(attr->flags & SWDEV_ATTR_F_NO_RECOVER))
>>>+             /* Some err on set: revert to previous value */
>>>+             _swdev_port_attr_set(dev, &prev);
>>
>>Could revering to previous value fail?
>
> I believe that it certainly could
>
>>Should such failure be logged?
>
> That is a good point.

I'll add a log msg on revert set failure, good suggestion.


> Also, looking at the function name, seems nicer to me to use "__"
> instead of "_" as a function prefix. Not sure if that is some rule
> somewhere.

Sure.  I'm not sure what the rule is either.  I seems to remember
about using "_" prefix for funcs called under lock, or something like
that.  I'll change it to "__".
--
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