netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 00/18] r8169: separate r8168 driver and add experimental phylib 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:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:27:53 +0100
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, nic_swsd@...ltek.com, hau@...ltek.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/18] r8169: separate r8168 driver and add
 experimental phylib support

Am 21.12.2017 um 22:16 schrieb David Miller:
> From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:38:11 +0100
> 
>> This experimental series separates drivers for PCI / PCIE NIC's and
>> adds initial phylib support to the separated r8168 driver.
> 
> Thanks for working on this.
> 
> The RX and TX ring handling is basically going to be identical
> for the two chips, so it's very undesirable to duplicate that
> code in the two drivers.
> 
Agree .. My approach would be:
- remove everything that's not needed from both drivers
- see what's still identical and factor it out into lib(s)

Currently the driver is one source code file with 8.700 LoC.
That's way too big anyway IMO and should be splitted.

> Getting good test coverage is going to be extremely challenging
> for this, so the more code you share between the two drivers
> rather than duplicate the better.
> 
I'm aware of this (seeing that basically every chip needs certain
quirks) and don't expect the patch set to be mainline-ready
very soon. I have access to one supported chip only, so I hope
others give it a try too.