netdev - RE: [PATCH v10 14/20] dlb: add start domain ioctl

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: <BYAPR11MB30954DC43BD80B7214C15A7BD9919@BYAPR11MB3095.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Mar 2021 20:26:52 +0000
From:   "Chen, Mike Ximing" <mike.ximing.chen@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com" 
        <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v10 14/20] dlb: add start domain ioctl


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> 
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:45:10AM +0000, Chen, Mike Ximing wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:54:17AM -0600, Mike Ximing Chen wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  {
> > > > @@ -232,6 +240,7 @@ struct dlb_device_ops dlb_pf_ops = {
> > > >  	.create_dir_queue = dlb_pf_create_dir_queue,
> > > >  	.create_ldb_port = dlb_pf_create_ldb_port,
> > > >  	.create_dir_port = dlb_pf_create_dir_port,
> > > > +	.start_domain = dlb_pf_start_domain,
> > >
> > > Why do you have a "callback" when you only ever call one function?  Why
> > > is that needed at all?
> > >
> > In our next submission, we are going to add virtual function (VF) support. The
> > callbacks for VFs are different from those for PF which is what we support in this
> > submission. We can defer the introduction of  the callback structure to when we
> > add the VF support. But since we have many callback functions, that approach
> > will generate many changes in then "existing" code. We thought that putting
> > the callback structure in place now would make the job of adding VF support easier.
> > Is it OK?
> 
> No, do not add additional complexity when it is not needed.  It causes
> much more review work and I and no one else have any idea that
> "something might be coming in the future", so please do not make our
> lives harder.
> 
> Make it simple, and work, now.  You can always add additional changes
> later, if it is ever needed.
> 

Sure. We will remove the callback structure from this patch set.

Thanks for reviewing

Mike