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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3a6ac4ea-bd8a-af43-fa99-fdc9f65fa761@mellanox.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 08:43:23 +0300
From:   Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...lanox.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     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


On 4/21/2020 8:37 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> 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?

Currently no. I am okay with single bool.