netdev - Re: netdev->priv and netdev

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: <m3bq74uwot.fsf@maximus.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:52:02 +0100
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: netdev->priv and netdev_priv(dev)

Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> Those drivers were making a incorrect assumption and should be fixed.
> The in-tree drivers were fixed when this was done. If you have an out
> of tree driver, then too bad for you.

I have few out-of-tree drivers (IOW not yet merged) but they aren't
affected. These in the tree are (actually I was contacted by driver's
author and am considering the best way to fix this).

> The additional overhead of the address calculation would slow down the
> well behaved drivers.

There is always dev->priv.

> There was discussion of alternative layouts of
> the network device allocation or limiting the number of subqueue's so
> that netdev_priv could be a simple addition again, but nothing came of
> it.

This isn't about an addition, netdev_priv() is still there. The
semantics silently changed, that's it.

I'm fine with its removal, is it ok? The trivial "return dev->priv"
isn't worth it anyway.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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