netdev - Re: [PATCH] netpoll: allow execution of multiple rx

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]

Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:53:43 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <danborkmann@...glemail.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netpoll: allow execution of multiple rx_hooks per 
	interface

2010/1/13 Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>:
> Daniel Borkmann <danborkmann@...glemail.com> writes:
>
>> Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> Matt Mackall wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 15:59 -0800, David Miller wrote:
>>>>> From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:21:48 -0600
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks pretty good. Dave?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
>>>>> I don't like the loop for RX ARP processing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The packet contents aren't going to change, so doing basic
>>>>> packet validation inside of the "for each RX client" loop
>>>>> of arp_reply() doesn't make any sense.
>>>> True. Dan, please help our poor compilers with some manual loop
>>>> invariant motion.
>>>
>>> Okay, true. I'll fix this by tomorrow and resend the patch.
>>
>> Here the fix of the RX ARP processing routine. Content that isn't
>> going to change is out-of-loop.
>> Successfully tested on my machines.
>
> Against what tree does this patch apply?  It doesn't apply to Linus's
> git tree.  Also, in the future, could you use the -p option to diff so
> we can see what function or data structure is being modified?  It really
> helps in reviewing.

As mentioned earlier in this thread... when I started developing the patch I
used 2.6.32.2 (latest stable from kernel.org), which might be already "old" ...
sorry for that. Ok, next time I will use -p, too. For the moment, it was diff
with -Nur. Shall I resend?

Best regards,
Daniel
--
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