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: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:22:49 +0100 From: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com> To: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: use mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext() for the 6250 On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:39, Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk> wrote: > mv88e6250_g1_vtu_getnext is almost identical to > mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext, except for the 6250 only having 64 databases > instead of 256. We can reduce code duplication by simply masking off > the extra two garbage bits when assembling the fid from VTU op [3:0] > and [11:8]. > > Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk> We might also want to give mv88e6250_g1_vtu_loadpurge the same treatment. Reviewed-by: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com> Tested-by: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists