netdev - Re: [PATCH V4 net-next 4/6] ethtool: extend ringparam setting uAPI with rx_buf

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: <8ce654b8-4a31-2d43-df7e-607528ba44d5@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 22:41:19 +0800
From:   "huangguangbin (A)" <huangguangbin2@...wei.com>
To:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <mkubecek@...e.cz>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
        <amitc@...lanox.com>, <idosch@...sch.org>, <danieller@...dia.com>,
        <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        <jdike@...toit.com>, <richard@....at>,
        <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>, <netanel@...zon.com>,
        <akiyano@...zon.com>, <saeedb@...zon.com>, <chris.snook@...il.com>,
        <ulli.kroll@...glemail.com>, <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        <jeroendb@...gle.com>, <csully@...gle.com>,
        <awogbemila@...gle.com>, <jdmason@...zu.us>,
        <rain.1986.08.12@...il.com>, <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>,
        <kys@...rosoft.com>, <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, <mst@...hat.com>,
        <jasowang@...hat.com>, <doshir@...are.com>,
        <pv-drivers@...are.com>, <jwi@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>, <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <johannes@...solutions.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <lipeng321@...wei.com>, <chenhao288@...ilicon.com>,
        <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 net-next 4/6] ethtool: extend ringparam setting uAPI
 with rx_buf_len



On 2021/10/26 3:01, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 25.10.2021 10:45:05, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> The approach Andrew suggested is two-fold. First introduce a "struct
>>> ethtool_kringparam" that's only used inside the kernel, as "struct
>>> ethtool_ringparam" is ABI. Then extend "struct ethtool_kringparam" as
>>> needed.
>>
>> Indeed, there are different ways to extend the API for drivers,
>> I think it comes down to personal taste. I find the "inheritance"
>> models in C (kstruct usually contains the old struct as some "base")
>> awkward.
>>
>> I don't think we have agreed-on best practice in the area.
> 
>  From my point of view, if there already is an extension mainline:
> 
> | https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net.git/commit/?id=f3ccfda19319
> 
> I'm more in the flavor for modeling other extensions the same way. Would
> be more consistent to name the new struct "kernel_"ethtool_ringparam,
> following the coalescing example:
> 
> | struct kernel_ethtool_ringparam {
> |        __u32   rx_buf_len;
> | };
> 
> regards,
> Marc
> 
We think ethtool_ringparam_ext is more easy to understand it is extension of
struct ethtool_ringparam. However, we don't mind to keep the same way and modify
to the name kernel_ethtool_ringparam if everyone agrees.

Does anyone have other opinions?