netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] dsa: Rename phys_port_mask to user_port

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: <20160411203155.GA32194@lunn.ch>
Date:	Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:31:55 +0200
From:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] dsa: Rename phys_port_mask to user_port_mask

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 01:03:52PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 11/04/16 12:50, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > The phys in phys_port_mask suggests this mask is about PHYs. In fact,
> > it means physical ports. Rename to user_port_mask, indicating user
> > ports of the switch, which is hopefully less confusing.
> 
> Even though the change looks fine in principle, I am more worried about
> the difficulty for people to backport fixes because of the renaming
> happening here. How about "enabled_ports_mask" as a name?

I'm fine with that. Anything, so long as it does not contain phys.

> Did not
> Guenter had a helper function at some point which tested for (1 << port
> & ds->phys_port_mask)?

Maybe you are thinking of:

static inline bool dsa_is_port_initialized(struct dsa_switch *ds, int p)
{
        return ds->phys_port_mask & (1 << p) && ds->ports[p];
}
 
So how about initialized_port_mask, although it is a bit long.

   Andrew