linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] net: dsa: simplify netdevice events handling

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: <87d1eyorxc.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Date:   Sat, 04 Feb 2017 11:13:19 -0500
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, cphealy@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] net: dsa: simplify netdevice events handling

Hi Florian,

Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> writes:

>> -	if (dsa_slave_dev_check(dev))
>> -		return dsa_slave_port_event(dev, event, ptr);
>> +	if (dev->netdev_ops != &dsa_slave_netdev_ops)
>> +		return NOTIFY_DONE;
>
> Why not keep the dsa_slave_dev_check() here?

I dropped it because that condition feels more readable to me than
!dsa_slave_dev_check(dev).

Thanks,

        Vivien