[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251003095128.GG2878334@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 10:51:28 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: alistair23@...il.com
Cc: chuck.lever@...cle.com, hare@...nel.org,
kernel-tls-handshake@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
kbusch@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
kch@...dia.com, hare@...e.de,
Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] net/handshake: Define handshake_sk_destruct_req
On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 02:31:33PM +1000, alistair23@...il.com wrote:
> From: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@....com>
>
> Define a `handshake_sk_destruct_req()` function to allow the destruction
> of the handshake req.
>
> This is required to avoid hash conflicts when handshake_req_hash_add()
> is called as part of submitting the KeyUpdate request.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@....com>
> ---
> v3:
> - New patch
Hi Alistair,
This is a not a proper review: I'll leave that to others.
But I notice that both Clang 21.1.1 and GCC 15.2.0, when run with
-Wunused-function, flag handshake_sk_descruct_req() as unused.
Which is the case until the following patch.
As both this and the following patch are small, and touch the same file,
I'm wondering if a simple approach is to squash the two patches into one.
Or perhaps no one cares. If so, sorry for the noise.
...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists