linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] staging: fsl-dpaa2/eth: Change RX buffer alignment

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:   Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:55:50 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@....com>
Cc:     "devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] staging: fsl-dpaa2/eth: Change RX buffer alignment

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 02:44:37PM +0000, Bogdan Purcareata wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@...cle.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 5:30 PM
> > To: Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@....com>
> > Cc: Ruxandra Ioana Radulescu <ruxandra.radulescu@....com>;
> > gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] staging: fsl-dpaa2/eth: Change RX buffer alignment
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 02:11:35PM +0000, Bogdan Purcareata wrote:
> > > @@ -93,10 +100,10 @@
> > >   * buffers large enough to allow building an skb around them and also
> > account
> > >   * for alignment restrictions
> > >   */
> > > -#define DPAA2_ETH_BUF_RAW_SIZE \
> > > +#define DPAA2_ETH_BUF_RAW_SIZE(priv) \
> > >  	(DPAA2_ETH_RX_BUF_SIZE + \
> > >  	SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) + \
> > > -	DPAA2_ETH_RX_BUF_ALIGN)
> > > +	(priv)->rx_buf_align)
> > >
> > 
> > Not related to this patch, but this macro is ugly.  It would be better
> > as function.
> 
> Okay, will change the macros to inline functions in v2, where applicable.
> 

You didn't need to do that, because I said it was "not related to this
change".  I try not to make people redo paches for stuff like this.  But
thanks, it looks nicer now.

regards,
dan carpenter