netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH] net: convert users of bitmap_foo() to linkmode

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: <de2f09e8-6f3b-7d6b-03ba-770c603e2f92@seco.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:26:15 -0400
From:   Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: convert users of bitmap_foo() to
 linkmode_foo()




On 10/25/21 3:20 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:50:45 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 06:41:04PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> > This converts instances of
>> > 	bitmap_foo(args..., __ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_MASK_NBITS)
>> > to
>> > 	linkmode_foo(args...)
>>
>> It does touch a lot of files, but it does help keep the API uniform.
>>
>> > I manually fixed up some lines to prevent them from being excessively
>> > long. Otherwise, this change was generated with the following semantic
>> > patch:
>>
>> How many did you fix?
>
> Strange, I thought coccinelle does pretty well on checkpatch compliance.

It does, but the problem is there is no obvious place to break

	long_function_name(another_long_function_name(and_some_variable)))

without introducing a variable.

>> > Because this touches so many files in the net tree, you may want to
>> > generate a new diff using the semantic patch above when you apply this.
>>
>> If it still applies cleanly, i would just apply it.
>
> It seems to apply but does not build (missing include in mlx4?)

Hmm. I tried to determine if the correct headers were included, but it
looks like there was an error there. In any case, it seems like David
fixed it up when he applied it.

--Sean