netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 mlx5-next 01/10] net/core: Introduce master_xmit_slave

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: <20200421053744.GX6581@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 07:37:44 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...lanox.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        jgg@...lanox.com, dledford@...hat.com, j.vosburgh@...il.com,
        vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        leonro@...lanox.com, saeedm@...lanox.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        alexr@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 mlx5-next 01/10] net/core: Introduce
 master_xmit_slave_get

Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 09:02:58PM CEST, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>On 4/20/20 12:56 PM, Maor Gottlieb wrote:
>> 
>> On 4/20/2020 9:48 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 08:04:01PM CEST, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/20 12:01 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>> Generic ndo with lag-specific arg? Odd. Plus, there is a small chance
>>>>> this is ever going to be used for other master. And if so, could be
>>>>> very
>>>>> easily renamed then...
>>>> core code should be generic, not specific and renamed at a later date
>>>> when a second use case arises.
>>> Yeah, I guess we just have to agree to disagree :)
>> 
>> So I am remaining with the flags. Any suggestion for better name for the
>> enum? Should I move master_xmit_get_slave from lag.h to netdevice.h?
>>>
>
>IMHO, yes, that is a better place.
>
>generic ndo name and implementation.
>type specific flag as needed.
>
>This is consistent with net_device and ndo - both generic concepts -
>with specifics relegated to flags (e.g., IFF_*)

Why there is need for flags? Why a single bool can't do as I suggested?
Do you see any usecase for another flag?