netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 1/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Reserved Management frames to CPU

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]

Date:   Sun, 04 Dec 2016 17:12:05 -0500
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 1/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Reserved Management frames to CPU

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:

>> The mv88e6xxx_ops actually implements the *features*. They can be
>> prefixed for clarity (e.g. .ppu_*, port_*, .atu_*, etc.). They don't
>> describe the register layout.
>> 
>> But we can discuss two ways of seeing this structure implementation:
>
> or
>
> 3) We have a prefix for us humans to help us find the code. Now we
> have ops, i cannot simply do M-. and emacs will take me to the
> implementation. I have to search for it a bit. Having the hint g1_
> tells me to go look in global1.c. Having the hint g2_ tells me to go
> look in global2.c. Having the port_ tells me to go look in port.c.
> Having no prefix tells me the code is scattered around and grep is my
> friend.

Just to be clear:

I totally agree for an implementation (e.g. mv88e6095_g1_set_cpu_port),
that's why I've been doing it since I started splitting the code around
in device-specific files. But I disagree for an mv88e6xxx_ops member.

You can have several implementations in the same file (e.g. global1.c),
so again the only value is the function name, not the struct member.


Thanks,

     Vivien