netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4] flow: virtualize flow cache entry methods

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: <4BB9A4F3.9050003@iki.fi>
Date:	Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:53:07 +0300
From:	Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] flow: virtualize flow cache entry methods

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 04:44:22PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>> It might actually make more sense to pass struct flow_cache_object**
>>> so the resolver can twiddle the flow_cache_entry's object. Then it'd
>>> be more explicit that the resolver is replacing entries.
>> Yes that sounds good.
> 
> Alternatively you can pass in a struct flow_cache_entry *.
> 
> Yet another way would be to keep it the same but move the NULL
> setting before the resolver call:
> 
> 	flo = NULL;
> 	if (fle) {
> 		flo = fle->object;
> 		fle->object = NULL;
> 	}
> 	flo = resolver(..., flo, ...);
> 
> This way it's obvious that we've given the reference over to
> the resolver.

Right. I'm fine either way. Is there any preference?
--
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