netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] net: stmmac: Only enable enhanced addressing mode when needed

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: <BN8PR12MB3266DCD09369F3682CC38690D3B60@BN8PR12MB3266.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Sep 2019 17:25:05 +0000
From:   Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
CC:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        "Jon Hunter" <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Bitan Biswas <bbiswas@...dia.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] net: stmmac: Only enable enhanced
 addressing mode when needed

From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Date: Sep/10/2019, 14:54:27 (UTC+00:00)

> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 08:32:38AM +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
> > Date: Sep/09/2019, 20:11:27 (UTC+00:00)
> > 
> > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 04:07:04PM +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
> > > > From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
> > > > Date: Sep/09/2019, 16:25:45 (UTC+00:00)
> > > > 
> > > > > @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ struct stmmac_dma_cfg {
> > > > >  	int fixed_burst;
> > > > >  	int mixed_burst;
> > > > >  	bool aal;
> > > > > +	bool eame;
> > > > 
> > > > bools should not be used in struct's, please change to int.
> > > 
> > > Huh? Since when? "aal" right above it is also bool. Can you provide a
> > > specific rationale for why we shouldn't use bool in structs?
> > 
> > Please see https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384.
> 
> The context is slightly different here. stmmac_dma_cfg exists once for
> each of these ethernet devices in the system, and I would assume that in
> the vast majority of cases there's exactly one such device in the system
> so the potential size increase is very small. On the other hand, there
> are potentially very many struct sched_dl_entity, so the size impact is
> multiplied.
> 
> Anyway, if you insist I'll rewrite this to use an unsigned int bitfield.

For new code I would rather prefer "int" but I guess it's up to David to 
decide this. I'm okay with both options as the check for this usage was 
removed in checkpatch: 
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/10/975

---
Thanks,
Jose Miguel 
Abreu