netdev - Re: [PATCHv3] drivers/net/usb: Add new driver ipheth

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: <4BB62620.3070807@sysvalve.es>
Date:	Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:15:12 +0200
From:	"L. Alberto Giménez" <agimenez@...valve.es>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, oliver@...kum.org,
	linville@...driver.com, j.dumon@...ion.com,
	steve.glendinning@...c.com, davem@...emloft.net, gregkh@...e.de,
	dgiagio@...il.com, dborca@...oo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] drivers/net/usb: Add new driver ipheth

On 04/01/2010 01:18 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 21:42 +0200, L. Alberto Giménez wrote:
> [...]
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/net/usb/ipheth.c
> [...]

Hi Ben,

Upstream has fixed several errors pointed out by you and Oliver (thanks
for that), but some of them are still pending.

I will send patches on top of my last driver submission (if the proper
way would be resubmit the whole code, please tell me. Anyway I need to
clarify some doubts...

>> +	usb_fill_bulk_urb(dev->tx_urb, udev,
>> +			  usb_sndbulkpipe(udev, dev->bulk_out),
>> +			  dev->tx_buf, IPHETH_BUF_SIZE,
>> +			  ipheth_sndbulk_callback,
>> +			  dev);
>> +	dev->tx_urb->transfer_flags |= URB_NO_TRANSFER_DMA_MAP;
>> +
>> +	retval = usb_submit_urb(dev->tx_urb, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> +	if (retval) {
>> +		err("%s: usb_submit_urb: %d", __func__, retval);
>> +		dev->stats.tx_errors++;
>> +		dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb);
>> +	} else {
>> +		net->trans_start = jiffies;
> 
> No longer needed.

What is not longer needed? The assignment, the whole "else" branch? If
the assignment is what is not needed, can I just remove that line, right?

> [...]
>> +#ifdef HAVE_NET_DEVICE_OPS
>> +static const struct net_device_ops ipheth_netdev_ops = {
>> +       .ndo_open = &ipheth_open,
>> +       .ndo_stop = &ipheth_close,
>> +       .ndo_start_xmit = &ipheth_tx,
>> +       .ndo_tx_timeout = &ipheth_tx_timeout,
>> +       .ndo_get_stats = &ipheth_stats,
>> +};
>> +#endif
> 
> Remove the #ifdef, there is no question whether we have net_device_ops.

Ok, I will just remove both #ifdefs, but why is that? Maybe in previous
versions of the kernel the net_device_ops struct was introduced and now
it's present no matter how you configure your kernel?

> I have no idea about USB so I haven't checked the USB API usage at all.

I think that Greg is the maintainer for the USB subsystem, so if he has
no further commets, I will try to submit fixes for both your and
Oliver's comments along with the upstream developers.

Thanks for your comments.

Best regards,
-- 
L. Alberto Giménez
JabberID agimenez@...ber.sysvalve.es
GnuPG key ID 0x3BAABDE1
--
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