linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 13/17] ethtool: add standard notification handler

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:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:59:41 +0200
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 13/17] ethtool: add standard notification handler

On Friday, 11 October 2019 7:56 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:17:43PM CEST, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:25:59PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:59:40PM CEST, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
> [...]
> 
> >> >+
> >> >+/* generic notification handler */
> >> >+static void ethnl_std_notify(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int
> >> >cmd,>> 
> >> Better "common" comparing to "standard", I believe.
> >
> >That's similar to ethnl_std_parse(), the idea is that this is the
> >standard handler for notifications which are triggered without
> >additional data and the message is the same as reply to corresponding
> >"GET" request (which is generated by the standard ethnl_get_doit()
> >handler). Notifications for actions and notifications for SET
> >commands which cannot be generated this standard way will have to
> >use their own (nonstandard) handler.
> 
> So "default"? The "standard" sounds rather weird to me. It isn't any
> "standard" :)

Yes, "default" sounds fine.

Michal