netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next,v3 03/12] flow_dissector: add flow action infrastructure

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:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 20:47:41 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        ariel.elior@...ium.com, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
        santosh@...lsio.com, madalin.bucur@....com,
        yisen.zhuang@...wei.com, salil.mehta@...wei.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, tariqt@...lanox.com,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, jiri@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
        grygorii.strashko@...com, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, alexandre.torgue@...com,
        joabreu@...opsys.com, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com,
        ganeshgr@...lsio.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
        Manish.Chopra@...ium.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next,v3 03/12] flow_dissector: add flow action
 infrastructure



On 11/20/2018 6:51 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> This new infrastructure defines the nic actions that you can perform
> from existing network drivers. This infrastructure allows us to avoid a
> direct dependency with the native software TC action representation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
> ---

[snip]

> +#define flow_action_for_each(__i, __act, __actions)			\
> +        for (__i = 0, __act = &(__actions)->entries[0]; __i < (__actions)->num_entries; __act = &(__actions)->entries[++__i])

Post increment is more common in for_each* constructs, any reason why
you are you using a pre increment here?
-- 
Florian