netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] ethtool: provide UAPI for PHY Signal Quality Index (SQI)

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]

Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 17:30:01 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, mkl@...gutronix.de,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Christian Herber <christian.herber@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] ethtool: provide UAPI for PHY Signal
 Quality Index (SQI)

> > I'm not sure if it's a good idea to define two separate callbacks. It
> > means adding two pointers instead of one (for every instance of the
> > structure, not only those implementing them), doing two calls, running
> > the same checks twice, locking twice, checking the result twice.
> > 
> > Also, passing a structure pointer would mean less code changed if we
> > decide to add more related state values later.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > If you don't agree, I have no objections so
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
> 
> I have no strong opinion on it. Should I rework it?

It is an internal API, so we can change it any time we want.

I did wonder if MAX should just be a static value. It seems odd it
would change at run time. But we can re-evaulate this once we got some
more users.

     Andrew