netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] add Intel X722 iWARP driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:21:39 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	gerlitz.or@...il.com
Cc:	faisal.latif@...el.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
	swise@...ngridcomputing.com, dledford@...hat.com,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, e1000-rdma@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] add Intel X722 iWARP driver

From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:40:53 +0200

> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@...el.com> wrote:
> 
>> We can certainly take up the discussion on improving the current port mapper design/implementation. But
>> that would be more appropriate in a separate thread.
> 
> If we observe a kernel API / mechanism which could be wrongly
> duplicated between two drivers, and now a new driver comes to town
> with C&P-ing this -- why not stopping and thinking before rushing to
> get the 3rd duplication upstream?

Yes, this really looks like a huge disaster.

People have to stop doing unique APIs in their drivers, especially
when equivalent functionality exists generically.