netdev - RE: [net-next 1/1] virtual-bus: Implementation of Virtual Bus

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:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:44:49 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
        "sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
        Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next 1/1] virtual-bus: Implementation of Virtual Bus



> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:11 PM
> 
> > A small improvement below, because get_drvdata() and set_drvdata()
> 
> Here it was called 'devdata' not the existing drvdata - so something different, I
> was confused for a bit too..
> 
Oh ok. but looks buggy in the patch as virtbus_dev doesn't have devdata field.
Anyways, container_of() is better type checked anyway as below.

+#define virtbus_get_devdata(dev)	((dev)->devdata)

> > is supposed to be called by the bus driver, not its creator.  And
> > below data structure achieve strong type checks, no void* casts, and
> > exactly achieves the foo_device example.  Isn't it better?
> 
> > mlx5_virtbus_device {
> > 	struct virtbus_device dev;
> > 	struct mlx5_core_dev *dev;
> > };
> 
> This does seem a bit cleaner than using the void * trick (more, OOPy at least)
> 
Ok. thanks.