netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 10/12] net: dsa: Wire up multicast IGMP snooping attribute notification

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]

Message-ID: <25387263-8ef4-1596-e464-d3c6ad0eb62c@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:02:45 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, vivien.didelot@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, idosch@...lanox.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
        ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 10/12] net: dsa: Wire up multicast IGMP
 snooping attribute notification

On 1/30/19 2:46 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> @@ -425,6 +425,8 @@ struct dsa_switch_ops {
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Multicast database
>>  	 */
>> +	int	(*port_multicast_toggle)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>> +					 bool mc_disabled);
>>  	int (*port_mdb_prepare)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>>  				const struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb);
>>  	void (*port_mdb_add)(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> 
> Hi Florian
> 
> I took a second look at this, after you asked the question.
> 
> What i see above is that port_multicast_toggle is different to
> port_mdb_prepare and port_mdb_add. From this context, it looks like
> there should not be a tab between int and (*port_multicast_toggle).
> 
> However, when you look at the real file, it becomes clear that it is
> actually normal to have a tab between the type and the name of the
> function pointer, and that port_mdb_prepare and port_mdb_add are
> different to the rest.
> 
> So you patch is O.K.

No worries, thanks for taking a look!
-- 
Florian