netdev - Re: [patch net-next 0/3] flow_offload: follow-ups to HW stats type patchset

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: <20200312124013.06609fbc@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:40:13 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        pablo@...filter.org, ecree@...arflare.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/3] flow_offload: follow-ups to HW stats type
 patchset

On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:03:59 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 09:30:28PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
> >On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:19:55 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> >> Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 08:05:19PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:  
> >> >On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:49:06 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:    
> >> >> This patchset includes couple of patches in reaction to the discussions
> >> >> to the original HW stats patchset. The first patch is a fix,
> >> >> the other two patches are basically cosmetics.    
> >> >
> >> >Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> >> >
> >> >This problem already exists, but writing a patch for nfp I noticed that
> >> >there is no way for this:
> >> >
> >> >	if (!flow_action_hw_stats_types_check(flow_action, extack,
> >> >					      FLOW_ACTION_HW_STATS_TYPE_DELAYED_BIT))
> >> >		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> >
> >> >to fit on a line for either bit, which kind of sucks.    
> >> 
> >> Yeah, I was thinking about having flow_action_hw_stats_types_check as a
> >> macro and then just simply have:
> >> 
> >> 	if (!flow_action_hw_stats_types_check(flow_action, extack, DELAYED))
> >> 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> 
> >> WDYT?  
> >
> >I'd rather have the 80+ lines than not be able to grep for it :(
> >
> >What's wrong with flow_action_stats_ok()? Also perhaps, flow_act 
> >as a prefix?  
> 
> Well nothing, just that we'd loose consistency. Everything is
> "flow_action_*" and also, the name you suggest might indicate that you
> are checking sw stats. :/

SW stats in flow action? flow stuff is an abstraction for HW/drivers.