netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 3/6] net: Introduce IFF_LWT

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:   Mon, 8 May 2017 22:04:04 -0700
From:   Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 3/6] net: Introduce IFF_LWT_NETDEV flag

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:57 PM, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/17 1:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
>> Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 10:55:12 +0200
>>
>>>
>>>> +static inline bool netif_is_lwd(struct net_device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +   return !!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_LWT_NETDEV);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Am I the only one who thinks that this "LWT_NETDEV" vs "LWD" is a bit
>>> confusing?
>>
>> Agreed, my old eyes can't discern them at a distance :-)
>>
>
> perhaps it is the tiny font your old eyes are having trouble with :-)
>
> I am fine with Johannes' suggestion -- just spell it out:
>     netif_is_lwt_netdev
>
> where lwt = LightWeighT

makes sense...but this does sound like a 'light weight tunnel
netdevice' though.....just cause 'LWT' already expands to 'light
weight tunnel'