netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 2/4] net: Introduce generic failover module

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180422200259-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:06:47 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Cc:     stephen@...workplumber.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, kubakici@...pl, jasowang@...hat.com,
        loseweigh@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 2/4] net: Introduce generic failover module

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:42:02PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NET_FAILOVER)
> +
> +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev,
> +		    struct failover **pfailover);

Should we rename all these structs net_failover?
It's possible to extend the concept to storage I think.

> +void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover);
> +
> +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops,
> +		      struct failover **pfailover);
> +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover);
> +
> +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev);
> +
> +#else
> +
> +static inline
> +int failover_create(struct net_device *standby_dev,
> +		    struct failover **pfailover);
> +{
> +	return 0;

Does this make callers do something sane?
Shouldn't these return an error?

> +}
> +
> +static inline
> +void failover_destroy(struct failover *failover)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline
> +int failover_register(struct net_device *standby_dev, struct failover_ops *ops,
> +		      struct pfailover **pfailover);
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}

struct pfailover seems like a typo.

> +
> +static inline
> +void failover_unregister(struct failover *failover)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline
> +int failover_slave_unregister(struct net_device *slave_dev)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}

Does anyone test return value of unregister?
should this be void?

> +
> +#endif
> +
> +#endif /* _NET_FAILOVER_H */