netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net/usb/r8152: support aggregation

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: <20698A1C08B24B92B3CD1D84AC85A175@realtek.com.tw>
Date:	Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:02:56 +0800
From:	hayeswang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To:	'David Miller' <davem@...emloft.net>, <oneukum@...e.de>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net/usb/r8152: support aggregation

 David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:41 AM
> To: oneukum@...e.de
> Cc: Hayeswang; netdev@...r.kernel.org; 
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net/usb/r8152: support aggregation
> 
[...]
> > I don't understand what problem the function is supposed to 
> fix. As long
> > as I don't understand it I cannot say for sure whether it 
> is correct.
> > There seems no obvious reason for a memory barrier, but 
> there may be a
> > hidden reason I don't see.
> 
> Hayes, when Oliver asks you "Against what is the memory 
> barrier?" he is asking
> you which memory operations you are trying to order.
> 
> You do not explain this in your commit message, nor do you 
> explain it with a
> suitable comment.  This is not acceptable.
> 
> It is absolutely critical, that any time you add a memory 
> barrier, you add a
> comment above the new memory barrier explaining exactly what 
> the barrier is
> trying to achieve.
> 
> In fact, this is required by our coding standards.

I just want to make sure the rx_desc and rx_data are set correctly before
they are used. However, I study some examples and information from internet,
and I think that the memory barries is not necessary here. Therefore, I would
remove them later.
 
Best Regards,
Hayes

--
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