netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5] rtnetlink: Support fine-grained netdevice bulk deletion

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3ab0e65d-5628-567f-cf17-5a717e8ad7f8@6wind.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 08:44:07 +0100
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     Lahav Schlesinger <lschlesinger@...venets.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, dsahern@...il.com,
        nikolay@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5] rtnetlink: Support fine-grained netdevice
 bulk deletion

Le 07/12/2021 à 13:48, Lahav Schlesinger a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 09:25:17AM +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> CAUTION: External E-Mail - Use caution with links and attachments
>>
>>
>> Le 05/12/2021 à 10:36, Lahav Schlesinger a écrit :
>> Some comments below, but please, keep the people who replied to previous
>> versions of this patch in cc.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h b/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h
>>> index eebd3894fe89..68fcde9c0c5e 100644
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h
>>> @@ -348,6 +348,7 @@ enum {
>>>       IFLA_PARENT_DEV_NAME,
>>>       IFLA_PARENT_DEV_BUS_NAME,
>>>
>>> +     IFLA_IFINDEX,
>> nit: maybe the previous blank line sit better after this new attribute (and
>> before __IFLA_MAX)?
> 
> Due to the comment above the previous 2 attributes, I think that by
> removing this empty line it can be accidentally thought as if the new
> attribute is part of this "block".
> As for adding a new line before __IFLA_MAX, I wanted to preserve the
> appearance we had before the IFLA_PARENT_DEV_xxx attributes where added,
> where there was no empty line before __IFLA_MAX.
Good point.

> 
> I don't mind either way though, whatever looks better to you.
Ok, forget my comment.


Regards,
Nicolas