netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] ethtool: support per-queue sub command --show-coalesce

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:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 08:10:04 +0100
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "Nunley, Nicholas D" <nicholas.d.nunley@...el.com>,
        "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "linville@...driver.com" <linville@...driver.com>,
        "nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
        "sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] ethtool: support per-queue sub command
 --show-coalesce

On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 11:53:40PM +0000, Nunley, Nicholas D wrote:
> > > @@ -5390,7 +5438,19 @@ static int do_perqueue(struct cmd_context *ctx)
> > >  	if (i < 0)
> > >  		exit_bad_args();
> > >
> > > -	/* no sub_command support yet */
> > > +	if (strstr(args[i].opts, "--show-coalesce") != NULL) {
> > 
> > Comparing args[i].func to do_gcoalesce might be easier.
> 
> This is the one comment where I think it's better to leave the code as it is.
> To me is seems more confusing to match on a function pointer that we're never
> going to call. Unless there are more objections I'd rather keep it the way it
> is.

No problem. This is not a code where performance is crucial. In theory,
you could get into trouble if someone introduces another command
(allowing per queue settings) with name like "--show-coalesce-foo" but
that's not very likely, IMHO.

Michal Kubecek