linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v10 2/2] net: af_packet: Use hrtimer to do the retire operation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <willemdebruijn.kernel.38c4c9c6a77df@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2025 09:35:31 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Xin Zhao <jackzxcui1989@....com>, 
 willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, 
 edumazet@...gle.com, 
 ferenc@...es.dev
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, 
 kuba@...nel.org, 
 pabeni@...hat.com, 
 horms@...nel.org, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v10 2/2] net: af_packet: Use hrtimer to do the
 retire operation

Xin Zhao wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-08-31 at 21:21 -0400, Willem wrote:
> 
> > > -		p1->retire_blk_tov = prb_calc_retire_blk_tmo(po,
> > > -						req_u->req3.tp_block_size);
> > > -	p1->tov_in_jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(p1->retire_blk_tov);
> > > +		p1->interval_ktime = ms_to_ktime(prb_calc_retire_blk_tmo(po,
> > > +						req_u->req3.tp_block_size));
> > 
> > req_u is not aligned with the line above.
> 
> I have some questions regarding the alignment here. According to the alignment requirements,
> req_u should be aligned below the po variable. However, if it is aligned below po, the line
> will become very long, which may affect readability. In this special case, can I align it to
> prb_calc_retire_blk_tmo instead, or should I continue to align it to the po variable?

The (minor) issue here is with the second req_u. Which is one space
off from the argument above. See checkpath.

In general, the line length and break rules are documented in the
kernel coding style page, which checkpatch follows.
 
> 
> What should I do next?
> Should I change the alignment, and resend PATCH with the reviewed information of version 10?

I did not think this one space was worth resending, so I added my
Reviewed-by. Others may disagree, but so far no other opinions.