netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: sched: sch: introduce extack support

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:   Wed, 06 Dec 2017 17:36:14 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     aring@...atatu.com
Cc:     jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...atatu.com, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] net: sched: sch: introduce extack support

From: Alexander Aring <aring@...atatu.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:34:08 -0500

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:40 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Alexander Aring <aring@...atatu.com>
>> Date: Wed,  6 Dec 2017 11:08:39 -0500
>>
>>> this patch series basically add support for extack in common qdisc handling.
>>> Additional it adds extack pointer to common qdisc callback handling this
>>> offers per qdisc implementation to setting the extack message for each
>>> failure over netlink.
>>>
>>> The extack message will be set deeper in qdisc functions but going not
>>> deeper as net core api. For qdisc module callback handling, the extack
>>> will not be set. This will be part of per qdisc extack handling.
>>>
>>> I also want to prepare patches to handle extack per qdisc module...
>>> so there will come a lot of more patches, just cut them down to make
>>> it reviewable.
>>>
>>> There are some above 80-chars width warnings, which I ignore because
>>> it looks more ugly otherwise.
>>>
>>> This patch-series based on patches by David Ahren which gave me some
>>> hints how to deal with extack support.
>>>
>>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
>>
>> Only add the plumbing when you have actual extack messages you are
>> adding as an example use case.
>>
> 
> I did not understand. I have a lot of patches which make use of these
> changes. Do you want me to submit me these in one shot (patch-series)?
> I was hoping to making it in smaller patch-series for easier review.

Submit one plumbing patch alongside the changes that actually add
messages in those code paths.

This patch series did plumbing in many spots, one patch at a time,
but added no users except in the initial path.

That's what I don't like.