netdev - Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH 3/9] qed: avoid truncating work queue length

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, 27 Mar 2024 16:34:31 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta" <sbhatta@...vell.com>,
 "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...nel.org>,
 "llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
 "Ariel Elior" <aelior@...vell.com>, "Manish Chopra" <manishc@...vell.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
 "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@...nel.org>,
 "Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
 "Bill Wendling" <morbo@...gle.com>, "Justin Stitt" <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
 "Simon Horman" <horms@...nel.org>,
 "Konstantin Khorenko" <khorenko@...tuozzo.com>,
 "Sudarsana Reddy Kalluru" <sudarsana.kalluru@...ium.com>,
 Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH 3/9] qed: avoid truncating work queue length

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, at 15:04, Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta wrote:

>>-		snprintf(name, NAME_SIZE, "slowpath-%02x:%02x.%02x",
>>-			 cdev->pdev->bus->number,
>>-			 PCI_SLOT(cdev->pdev->devfn), hwfn->abs_pf_id);
>>+		hwfn->slowpath_wq = alloc_workqueue("slowpath-
>>%02x:%02x.%02x",
>>+					 0, 0, cdev->pdev->bus->number,
>>+					 PCI_SLOT(cdev->pdev->devfn),
>>+					 hwfn->abs_pf_id);
>
> Confused. This should be alloc_workqueue("slowpath-%02x:%02x.%02x",  
> cdev->pdev->bus->number, PCI_SLOT(cdev->pdev->devfn), hwfn->abs_pf_id, 
> 0, 0);
> Right?

I still think my version is the right one here, see the
prototype:

__printf(1, 4) struct workqueue_struct *
alloc_workqueue(const char *fmt, unsigned int flags, int max_active, ...);

so the first argument in the format, while the printf arguments
start after the flags and max_active arguments that are still both
set to zero.

      Arnd