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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <b0ec3fa5-8746-0c1f-27e8-cb8960c7d01f@mojatatu.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 08:52:31 -0400 From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, dsa@...ulusnetworks.com, edumazet@...gle.com, stephen@...workplumber.org, daniel@...earbox.net, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 02/10] net: sched: introduce tcf block infractructure On 17-05-16 08:23 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:07:25PM CEST, jhs@...atatu.com wrote: >> >> Jiri, >> >> I am sorry i am tied up elsewhere but will respond in chunks. >> >> On 17-05-15 04:38 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >>> static inline void qdisc_cb_private_validate(const struct sk_buff *skb, int sz) >>> { >>> struct qdisc_skb_cb *qcb; >> >> >>> +int tcf_block_get(struct tcf_block **p_block, >>> + struct tcf_proto __rcu **p_filter_chain) >>> +{ >>> + struct tcf_block *block = kzalloc(sizeof(*block), GFP_KERNEL); >>> + >>> + if (!block) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + block->p_filter_chain = p_filter_chain; >>> + *p_block = block; >>> + return 0; >>> +} >> >> tcf_block_get() sounds odd. tcf_block_create()? > > I used get/put because I plan to allow sharing of block between qdiscs > in future. Then there will be a refcount. > Ok, I guess I should read further into the patches.. >>> -static struct tcf_proto __rcu **atm_tc_find_tcf(struct Qdisc *sch, >>> - unsigned long cl) >>> +static struct tcf_block *atm_tc_tcf_block(struct Qdisc *sch, unsigned long cl) >> >> Any reason you removed the verb "find" from all these calls? >> eg above: better to have atm_tc_tcf_block_find()? > > Yeah, I was thinking about it. The thing is, the callback does not do > any lookup so "find" is not accurate. Also without "find" this is > shorter so I decided for this naming variant. > They do select some chain - at least that was the intent. Are you not planning to use this to pick a chain in a block? cheers, jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists