netdev - Re: [RFC Patch net-next 1/5] net: introduce generic union inet

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: <51CBF466.4050705@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:14:30 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next 1/5] net: introduce generic union inet_addr

On 06/27/2013 09:42 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 14:43 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
>
> I was about to answer for the Daniel's patch about %pig.
>
> Daniel, could you resend your patch series to the LKML, since it touches
> lib/vsprintf.c.

Agreed. Will put lkml into CC for the vsprintf change.

> Also, regarding to your patch 2/2, could it be possible to split it to
> two parts: first substitutes SCTP macros not related to IP addresses and
> second one is explicitly targeting against SCTP_DEBUG_PRINTK_IPADDR ?

Well, as Vlad, one of the SCTP maintainers, already went through this patch
and I've already applied the few changes he requested, I'd like not to put
too much burden on yet another round of review, as the rest of the code
stays as is.

> By the way, in some places in 2/2 you didn't change open coded function
> name to the '"%s: ...", __func__, ...'.

Right, but those messages are rather more of generic nature. I went through
all of this in detail, and I think it's okay like that.

> Cong, I don't think is a good idea to update lib/ code and net/ code in
> one patch, since that are logically a bit different. lib/ code sounds
> more common, it's better if it leads separately this series.
--
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