netdev - Re: [RFC Patch 1/3] netpoll: add generic support for bridge and bonding devices

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4BA847EB.9040808@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:47:39 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	mpm@...enic.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	gospo@...hat.com, nhorman@...driver.com,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, fubar@...ibm.com,
	jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 1/3] netpoll: add generic support for bridge and bonding
 devices

David Miller wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:13:43 +0800
> 
>> Matt Mackall wrote:
>>> Seems like a lot of interface for something to be used by only a
>>> couple
>>> core drivers. Hopefully Dave has an opinion here.
>>>
>> Yeah, I worry about this too, maybe we can group those methods
>> for netpoll together into another struct, and just put a pointer
>> here?
> 
> This looks like it's tackled at the wrong layer, to be honest.
> 
> Teaching all of these layers about eachother's states is
> going to end up being a nightmare in the end.
> 
> All of this "where is the npinfo" business can be handled
> generically in net/core/dev.c I think, with none of these
> callbacks.
> 
> For example, something like "if dev lacks ->npinfo, check
> it's master".

This is a good point! I haven't tried but certainly this is
worthy a try. Ideally those callbacks can be all removed,
but I don't know if this is true practically. ;)

I will try.

> 
> Another thing, I wouldn't iterate over all devices, like I
> see in the bonding poll controller method.  Just whichever
> one supports netpoll you see first, use it and exit
> immediately.  Don't send it to every single port, I can't
> see how that might be desirable or useful.

Yeah, for bonding case, probably. But for bridge case, I think
we still need to check all, right?

Thanks!
--
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