linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 RFC 1/6] page_pool: frag API support for 32-bit arch with 64-bit DMA

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:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 20:28:03 +0200
From:   Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
CC:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@...il.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        "Leon Romanovsky" <leon@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 RFC 1/6] page_pool: frag API support for 32-bit arch
 with 64-bit DMA

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:16:21 -0700

> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 20:33:05 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>>> Only those used in function prototypes. Pointers in structures 
>>> are somewhat special and don't require fwd declaration.  
>>
>> I gave it a try to split it, and something as below come out:
>>
>> https://github.com/gestionlin/linux/commit/11ac8c1959f7eda06a7b987903f37212b490b292
>>
>> As the 'helpers.h' is not really useful when splitting, so only
>> 'page_pool_types.h' is added, and include 'page_pool_types.h' in
>> 'page_pool.h', does it make sense?
>>
>> As Alexander is sending a new RFC for the similar problem, I think
>> we need to align on which is the better way to solve the problem.
> 
> LGTM, thanks!

Looks nice to me as well.
Re "which way is better" -- they can coexist actually. skbuff.h won't
lose anything if doesn't include any PP headers at all after my commit,
while yours also adds some future-proofing, as you never know when the
same story happens to some other header file.

(BTW it would be nice to inspect page_pool.h users whether each of them
 needs the full-blown header)

Thanks,
Olek