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  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, 09 Dec 2020 16:21:31 +0100
From:   Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, vivien.didelot@...il.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, olteanv@...il.com, j.vosburgh@...il.com,
        vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/4] net: dsa: Link aggregation support

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 15:27, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>> I disagree. A LAG is one type of netdev that a DSA port can offload. The
>> other one is the DSA port's own netdev, i.e. what we have had since time
>> immemorial.
>> 
>> dsa_port_offloads_netdev(dp, dev)?
>
> That is better.

...but there is an even better one?

> But a comment explaining what the function does might
> be useful.

This is the function body:

	/* Switchdev offloading can be configured on: */

	if (dev == dp->slave)
		/* DSA ports directly connected to a bridge. */
		return true;

	if (dp->lag && dev == dp->lag->dev)
		/* DSA ports connected to a bridge via a LAG */
		return true;

	return false;

What more is there to explain? Is it the style?  Do you prefer initial
block comments over explaining the individual statements? Is the lanuage
not up to standard?

I am sorry for the tone, I am aware of it. It is just that I really want
to contributem but I am starting to feel like a tty-over-email-proxy to
my emacs session - and an extremely unreliable one at that.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists