netdev - Re: [EXT] Re: [net-next, 1/2] enetc: Configure the Time-Aware Scheduler via tc-taprio offload

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: <20191112134635.qxcyf4bzyiwazdmn@netronome.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:46:36 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:     Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
Cc:     Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "vinicius.gomes@...el.com" <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>,
        Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@....com>,
        Roy Zang <roy.zang@....com>, Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu@....com>,
        Jerry Huang <jerry.huang@....com>, Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [net-next, 1/2] enetc: Configure the Time-Aware
 Scheduler via tc-taprio offload

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:54:29AM +0000, Claudiu Manoil wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Po Liu <po.liu@....com>
> [...]
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
> [...]
> >> > +/* class 5, command 0 */
> >> > +struct tgs_gcl_conf {
> >> > +     u8      atc;    /* init gate value */
> >> > +     u8      res[7];
> >> > +     union {
> >> > +             struct {
> >> > +                     u8      res1[4];
> >> > +                     __le16  acl_len;
> >>
> >> Given that u* types are used in this structure I think le16 would be more
> >> appropriate than __le16.
> >
> >Here keep the same code style of this .h file. I think it is better to have
> >another patch to fix them all. Do you agree?
> >
> 
> I don't see why "le16" would be more appropriate than "__le16" in this context.
> The "__leXX" types are widely used in kernel drivers and not only, to annotate the
> endianess of the hardware.  These are generic types defined din "include/uapi/linux/types.h".
> Whereas "leXX" are defined in "fs/ntfs/types.h", and there's no usage of these types
> in other h/w device drivers (I didn't find any).  Am I missing anything?

My point is a cosmetic one:
I think that __u8 goes with __le16, while u8 goes with le16.