netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 01/11] s390/qeth: simplify RX buffer tracking

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <30d06ab8-ee58-0c58-aab2-f68254d9a232@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:20:54 +0100
From:   Julian Wiedmann <jwi@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, ubraun@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/11] s390/qeth: simplify RX buffer tracking

On 25.03.20 00:43, David Miller wrote:
> From: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@...ux.ibm.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 19:24:38 +0100
> 
>> +#define QDIO_ELEMENT_NO(buf, element)	(element - &buf->element[0])
> 
> Maybe this works, but I would strongly suggest against using a CPP
> macro argument that is the same name for the singleton element on
> the left branch of the expression as the struct member name on
> the right side of the element.

Right you are, this would look a lot less fragile with some underscores.

> 
> Furthermore, as far as I can tell this is only used in one location
> in the code, and for such a simple expression that is excessive.
> 

This I flat out disagree with, but it's hardly worth arguing about.
So let me fold that macro back in, and send you a v2.