linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/8] ynl: support directional specs in ynl-gen-c.py

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: <ZzfDWB1O_mgF0o7j@mini-arch>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 13:55:36 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	donald.hunter@...il.com, horms@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
	andrew+netdev@...n.ch, kory.maincent@...tlin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/8] ynl: support directional specs in
 ynl-gen-c.py

On 11/15, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:36:41 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > The intent is to generate ethtool uapi headers. For now, some of the
> > things are hard-coded:
> > - <FAMILY>_MSG_{USER,KERNEL}_MAX
> > - the split between USER and KERNEL messages
> 
> Maybe toss in a TODO: comment or some such on top of
> render_uapi_directional(), to make it clear that the code needs 
> more love before it can be reasonably reused.
> 
> nit: possibly split into two commits for ease of review
> 
> > +    if family.msg_id_model == 'unified':
> > +        render_uapi_unified(family, cw, max_by_define, separate_ntf)
> > +    elif family.msg_id_model == 'directional':
> > +        render_uapi_directional(family, cw, max_by_define)
> > +    else:
> > +        raise Exception(f'Unsupported enum-model {family.msg_id_model}')
> 
> You gotta say "Message enum-model", enum-mode alone sounds like we're
> doing something with how enums are processed, rather than message IDs.

"Unsupported message enum-model {...}" ? Will do.