netdev - Re: [PATCH 8/9]: sch_hfsc: Use ->requeue queue instead of ops.

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: <48AAC57E.1090504@trash.net>
Date:	Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:07:10 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jarkao2@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9]: sch_hfsc: Use ->requeue queue instead of ops.

David Miller wrote:
> From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:11:57 +0200
> 
>> I think we really need either ->requeue or a real ->peek operation.
> 
> All the code duplication and complexity is what I'm trying to avoid.
> 
> I see no value in overhauling and auditing all of these ->requeue()
> implementations and how they return status codes when the facility
> itself is largely superfluous.
> 
> Maybe we can simply add a "bool peek" argument or some flags to
> ->dequeue() instead.

Yes, that should work. It might get a big ugly though since the
->dequeue functions have to make sure not to modify any state
while peeking.

--
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