netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] openvswitch: Do not use private netdev

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 8 Jan 2015 00:49:35 +0100
From:	Daniele Di Proietto <daniele.di.proietto@...il.com>
To:	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] openvswitch: Do not use private netdev_vport fields

Ok, I've sent the other version of the patch (openvswitch: Add
ovs_vport_get_index() to hide vport implementation).
It adds the .get_index() vport operation (which mimics .get_name())
and ovs_vport_get_index().

Please, let me know which approach you would prefer

Thanks

2015-01-07 7:00 GMT+01:00 Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Daniele Di Proietto
> <daniele.di.proietto@...il.com> wrote:
>> The motivation for the change is to make datapath.c independent from
>> the actual implementation of the vport. The problem came up when
>> experimenting with other vport implementations and this type of change
>> will help identifying layering violations.
>> You are perfectly right, however, that in this form the code does not
>> improve much: we should rather provide a vport_index() call, and
>> implement one in each of the vports.
>>
>
> This sounds like lot more invasive change compared to the current
> patch. For such change I need to see complete set of changes that you
> are planning.
>
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> 2015-01-06 23:28 GMT+01:00 Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>:
>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:02 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>>>> From: Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:16:11 -0800
>>>>>
>>>>>> Function return type and function name should be on same line,
>>>>>> otherwise looks good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree, where is the code in the tree that needs this?
>>>>
>>>> Most of function definitions that I have seen are defined like this. I
>>>> was pointing out coding style issue.
>>>
>>> About the actual change, I think it is a cleanup. netdev_vport_index()
>>> hides the implementation from datapath.c. I hope Daniele will explain
>>> need for the change.
--
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