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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:34:25 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Donald Sharp <sharpd@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Dinesh Dutt <didutt@...il.com>,
        Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@...roma2.it>,
        Paolo Lungaroni <paolo.lungaroni@...t.it>,
        Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,net-next, 2/5] vrf: track associations between VRF devices
 and tables

On 6/13/20 4:53 PM, Andrea Mayer wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> thanks for your questions.
> 
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:28:59 -0700
> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
> 
>>> +
>>> +	 * Conversely, shared_table is decreased when a vrf is de-associated
>>> +	 * from a table with exactly two associated vrfs.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	int shared_tables;
>>
>> Should this be unsigned?
>> Should it be a fixed size?
> 
> Yes. I think an u32 would be reasonable for the shared_table.
> What do you think?
> 

u32 or unsigned int is fine.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists