netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ethtool: Macro definition for SFF-8436/8636 Memory map max sizes

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: <1465734784.3529.147.camel@decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 12 Jun 2016 13:33:04 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, vidya@...ulusnetworks.com
Cc:	bwh@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ethtool: Macro definition for SFF-8436/8636
 Memory map max sizes

On Sat, 2016-06-11 at 15:51 -0700, David Miller wrote:
[...]
> Why do we need these values in the header file at all?

Because we don't like putting magic numbers in driver code, and these
sizes are defined by standards that are independent of a single driver.

> The application can probe the size by repeated eeprom calls, increasing
> the buffer size each time as needed until success.

But really it should use ETHTOOL_GMODULEINFO first.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
The program is absolutely right; therefore, the computer must be wrong.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)