netdev - Re: [RFC/PATCH 02/18] ravb: Rename the variables "no_ptp_cfg_active" and "ptp_cfg

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: <2d2760da-8400-c43a-8629-a16e78f79326@omp.ru>
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:57:55 +0300
From:   Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
To:     Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
        "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...il.com>,
        "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>,
        Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com>,
        Biju Das <biju.das@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 02/18] ravb: Rename the variables "no_ptp_cfg_active"
 and "ptp_cfg_active"

On 9/23/21 7:35 PM, Biju Das wrote:

[...]
>>> Rename the variable "no_ptp_cfg_active" with "no_gptp" with inverted
>>> checks and "ptp_cfg_active" with "ccc_gac".
>>
>>    That's not exactly rename, no? At least for the 1st case...
> 
> This is what we agreed as per last discussion[1]. 
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/patch/20210825070154.14336-5-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com/

   Sorry, I've changed my mind about 'no_gpgp' after seeing all the checks. I'd like to avoiud the double negations
in those checks -- this should make the code more clear. My 1st idea (just 'gp[tp') turned out to be more practical,
sorry about this going back-and-forth. :-<

[...]

MBR, Sergey