netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: Change TCA_ACT_* to TCA_ID_* to match that of TCA_ID

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190210081956.GA18213@nps-server-21.mtl.labs.mlnx>
Date:   Sun, 10 Feb 2019 10:19:57 +0200
From:   Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
        dirk.vandermerwe@...ronome.com, francois.theron@...ronome.com,
        quentin.monnet@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
        edwin.peer@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: Change TCA_ACT_* to TCA_ID_* to match
 that of TCA_ID_POLICE

On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 10:01:10AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>
> Date: Thu,  7 Feb 2019 09:45:49 +0200
> 
> > diff --git a/net/sched/act_simple.c b/net/sched/act_simple.c
> > index 902957beceb3..d54cb608dbaf 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/act_simple.c
> > +++ b/net/sched/act_simple.c
> > @@ -19,8 +19,6 @@
> >  #include <net/netlink.h>
> >  #include <net/pkt_sched.h>
> >  
> > -#define TCA_ACT_SIMP 22
> > -
> >  #include <linux/tc_act/tc_defact.h>
> >  #include <net/tc_act/tc_defact.h>
> >  
> 
> I would do this in patch #1.

Sure, that was the intention. It just slipped off my fingers.

Will fix and send a new series.

> Actually, because you didn't, after patch #1 there are two #defines
> evaluated for this macro.  One in pkt_cls.h and one here.
> 
> The only reason the compiler doesn't warn and complain is because the
> definitions are identical.
> 
> Thank you.