linux-kernel - RE: gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer

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]

Message-ID: <DB4PR04MB379C759FAC390B043575A1296C00@DB4PR04MB379.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:11:54 +0000
From:	Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
CC:	Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@...escale.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table()
 after error detection

>-----Original Message-----
>From: SF Markus Elfring [mailto:elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net]
>Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:33 PM
>To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
>Cc: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@...escale.com>; LKML <linux-
>kernel@...r.kernel.org>; kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org; Julia Lawall
><julia.lawall@...6.fr>
>Subject: Re: gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after
>error detection
>
>>>> 	local_rqfpr = kmalloc_array(2 * (MAX_FILER_IDX + 1),
>>>> 				    sizeof(unsigned int), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> 	if (!local_rqfpr)
>>>> 		goto err;
>>>>
>>>> 	local_rqfcr = &local_rqfpr[MAX_FILER_IDX + 1];
>>>
>>> Do you suggest to use only one array (instead of two as before) here?
>>
>> That's a possibility.
>
>Thanks for your clarification.
>
>
>> If, as your title suggests, you really want fewer function calls,
>
>I am unsure at the moment if more changes will make sense in
>this function implementation.
>
>
>> (which as far as I saw, you didn't do)
>
>Is my wording "after error detection" insufficient eventually?
>
>
>> that could be a mechanism to remove both an allocation and a free.
>
>Would any more software developers or source code reviewers like
>to share their opinions in such a direction?
>

Hi,
This kind of fixes are net-next stuff at best, no need to push them into
the net tree right now.
So please wait with these submissions until net-next re-opens at least.
Thanks.