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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 09:52:55 +0200 From: Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Ulisses Alonso CamarĂ³ <uaca@...mni.uv.es> Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] docs: networking: packet_mmap: don't mention PACKET_MMAP Hi Jakub, On Thu, Dec 17 2020, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:51:17 +0200 Baruch Siach wrote: >> Before commit 889b8f964f2f ("packet: Kill CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP.") there >> used to be a CONFIG_PACKET_MMAP config symbol that depended on >> CONFIG_PACKET. The text still refers to PACKET_MMAP as the name of this >> feature, implying that it can be disabled. Another naming variant is >> "Packet MMAP". >> >> Use "PACKET mmap()" everywhere to unify the terminology. Rephrase the >> text the implied mmap() feature disable option. > > Should we maybe say AF_PACKET mmap() ? I thought that PACKET is better because it is the minimal change, and because of the reference to CONFIG_PACKET. Should we rename CONFIG_PACKET to CONFIG_AF_PACKET as well? What do you think? baruch -- ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch@...s.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
Powered by blists - more mailing lists