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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200312070359.GA2221@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:03:59 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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

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. :/