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

Message-Id: <20250901141612.2232833-1-jackzxcui1989@163.com>
Date: Mon,  1 Sep 2025 22:16:12 +0800
From: Xin Zhao <jackzxcui1989@....com>
To: 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

On Mon, 2025-09-01 at 09:35 -0400, Willem 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.

Okay, I will not resend the patch if there are no other opinions.


Thanks
Xin Zhao