netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/4] [ROSE] rose_get

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: <478CC65B.9000505@ccr.jussieu.fr>
Date:	Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:42:35 +0100
From:	Bernard Pidoux <pidoux@....jussieu.fr>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC:	Ralf Baechle DL5RB <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] [ROSE] rose_get_route() template

Hi,

I wrote a "simplified" get_route() function.
It is declared as static following judicious Eric's remark.

Then, the following patch of include/net/rose.h is no more
necessary.

A new commit for rose_get_route() will be presented in next
message.

Thank you Eric for pushing me to reexamine my code.

Regards,

Bernard P.



Bernard Pidoux wrote:
> 
> 
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Bernard Pidoux a écrit :
>>>  From 46bccce1e660a39bcc8f8cf87d4c17de33f4ba48 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Bernard Pidoux <f6bvp@...at.org>
>>> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:01:46 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] [ROSE] template declaration for rose_get_route()
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bernard Pidoux <f6bvp@...at.org>
>>> ---
>>>  include/net/rose.h |    1 +
>>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/net/rose.h b/include/net/rose.h
>>> index e5bb084..d3ab453 100644
>>> --- a/include/net/rose.h
>>> +++ b/include/net/rose.h
>>> @@ -202,6 +202,7 @@ extern struct net_device *rose_dev_first(void);
>>>  extern struct net_device *rose_dev_get(rose_address *);
>>>  extern struct rose_route *rose_route_free_lci(unsigned int, struct 
>>> rose_neigh *);
>>>  extern struct rose_neigh *rose_get_neigh(rose_address *, unsigned 
>>> char *, unsigned char *);
>>> +extern struct rose_neigh *rose_get_route(rose_address *, unsigned 
>>> char *, unsigned char *);
>>>  extern int  rose_rt_ioctl(unsigned int, void __user *);
>>>  extern void rose_link_failed(ax25_cb *, int);
>>>  extern int  rose_route_frame(struct sk_buff *, ax25_cb *);
>>> -- 
>>
>> Strange... if rose_get_route() is used only in net/rose/rose_route.c, 
>> why dont you define it static, and not extern in include/net/rose.h ?
>>
>>
>>
> 
> I agree. You are perfectly right.
> There is no need to declare rose_get_route() external.
> I stupidly copied rose_get_neigh()definition from which I derived 
> rose_get_route();
> 
> Also I am not sure that setting cause and diagnostic is necessary, as 
> they are not used by the calling function.
> 
> By the way. I made a typo in [PATCH 4/4].
> 
> Instead of "Initial connection to rose neighbour nodes was unusually,
> t0 timer was blocked and application program could not
> use socket."
> 
> One should read
> "Initial connection to rose neighbour nodes was unusually,
> long, t0 timer was blocked and application program could not
> use socket."
> 
> Bernard P.
> 
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html