linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] net: Remove unused function parameters in skbuff.c

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: <beea4b9f-657f-4f98-a853-e40a503e2274@rbox.co>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 09:27:09 +0200
From: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
 Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
 Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>, John Fastabend
 <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Ayush Sawal <ayush.sawal@...lsio.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com>, "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>, Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] net: Remove unused function parameters in
 skbuff.c

On 7/1/25 03:18, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:33:33 +0200 Michal Luczaj wrote:
>> Couple of cleanup patches to get rid of unused function parameters around
>> skbuff.c, plus little things spotted along the way.
>>
>> Offshoot of my question in [1], but way more contained. Found by adding
>> "-Wunused-parameter -Wno-error" to KBUILD_CFLAGS and grepping for specific
>> skbuff.c warnings.
> 
> I feel a little ambivalent about the removal of the flags arguments.
> I understand that they are unused now, but theoretically the operation
> as a whole has flags so it's not crazy to pass them along.. Dunno.

I suspect you can say the same about @gfp. Even though they've both became
irrelevant for the functions that define them. But I understand your
hesitation. Should I post v3 without this/these changes?

What's netdev's stance on using __always_unused in such cases?

Thanks,
Michal