netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] fix problems with NETIF_F

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: <20100326123250A.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date:	Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:33:12 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	hancockrwd@...il.com
Cc:	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, bzolnier@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] fix problems with NETIF_F_HIGHDMA in networking 
	drivers v2

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:03:37 -0600
Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com> wrote:

> This seems like it could be a reasonable approach. The only thing is
> that in this code you're returning 1 if the parent device has no DMA
> mask set. Wouldn't it make more sense to return 0 in this case? I'm
> assuming that in that situation it's a virtual device not backed by
> any hardware and there should be no DMA mask restriction...

I chose the safer option because I don't know enough how net_device
structure is used. If returning zero in such case is always safe, it's
fine by me. any example of such virtual device driver?
--
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