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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 12:30:46 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: brgl@...ev.pl Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com, john@...ozen.org, sean.wang@...iatek.com, Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com, kuba@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, fparent@...libre.com, hkallweit1@...il.com, edwin.peer@...adcom.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, stephane.leprovost@...iatek.com, pedro.tsai@...iatek.com, andrew.perepech@...iatek.com, bgolaszewski@...libre.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/14] net: core: provide priv_to_netdev() From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 08:04:39 +0200 > I will if you insist but would you mind sharing some details on why it > was removed? To me it still makes more sense than storing the pointer > to a structure in *that* structure. Flexibility in implementation of where the private data is located and how it is allocated. And yes, I do insist.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists