netdev - Re: [PATCH] netem: Fixes byte backlog accounting for the first of two chained netem instances

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:	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:47:25 +0000
From:	"Beshay, Joseph" <jdb109120@...allas.edu>
To:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
CC:	"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"netem@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <netem@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netem: Fixes byte backlog accounting for the first of two
 chained netem instances


On Apr 3, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net> wrote:

> On 3 April 2015 at 23:52, Beshay, Joseph <jdb109120@...allas.edu> wrote:
> 
>> +                       /* jbeshay: update byte backlog */
>> +                       qdisc_qstats_backlog_dec(sch, skb);
> 
> Patch seems fine to me. Except the comment: that you update the qstat
> backlog is already noted in the function name - superfluous comment.
> That *you* fixed it will be saved in git. Think about it if we add
> these kinds of comments all over the place …

Agreed. Should I resend the patch without the comments?

--
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