netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x_tables: Factor out 16bit aligment ifname

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: <1421052051.9233.11.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 00:40:51 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, coreteam@...filter.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	vyasevic@...hat.com, jiri@...nulli.us, vfalico@...il.com,
	therbert@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	jmorris@...ei.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu,
	kaber@...sh.net, pablo@...filter.org, kay@...y.org,
	stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x_tables: Factor out 16bit aligment ifname_compare()

On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 09:18 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 12.01.2015 um 03:50 schrieb David Miller:
> > From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
> > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:42:37 +0100
> > 
> >> Joe, I really don't care. This is the least significant
> >> patch of the series.
> >> I'll no longer waste my time with that.
> > 
> > If you're not willing to fix stylistic issues now, then nobody should
> > bother wasting their time on the high level issues of your patch.
> > 
> > Just fix these things now rather than being difficult, this is a part
> > of patch review that everyone has to do, not just you.
> 
> I apologize, it was not my intention to be difficult.

No worries.

The unsigned long return is kind of odd with a
compare_<foo> name as those are generally, as Jan
mentioned, signed comparison style return values.

I'd probably use a different function name too

bool ifname_equal(const char *a, const char *b, const char *mask)
{
}

to try to make the return value more obvious too.

> If you and netfilter folks now prefer bool
> for such string compare functions I'll happily address this in
> v2 of my series.

Thanks


--
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