netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 04/11] sfc_ef100: TX path for EF100 NICs

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: <4cd2e7e9-a5e4-283e-d4f2-f7f1d3b41669@solarflare.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 15:36:11 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 04/11] sfc_ef100: TX path for EF100 NICs

On 31/07/2020 20:39, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:59:04 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
>> +static inline efx_oword_t *ef100_tx_desc(struct efx_tx_queue *tx_queue,
>> +					 unsigned int index)
> Does this static inline make any difference?
>
> You know the general policy...
Damn, I didn't spot that one.

Why doesn't checkpatch catch those?  Is it just not smart enough
 to remember whether it's in a .c file or not?  Or do I need to
 pass it some --strict --fascist --annoy-me-harder flags?

Will remove 'inline' in v3, thanks.

-ed