netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v5 1/6] gtp: Allow to create GTP device without FDs

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Sat, 12 Feb 2022 09:15:39 +0100
From:   Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>
To:     Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com,
        wojciech.drewek@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        pablo@...filter.org, osmocom-net-gprs@...ts.osmocom.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v5 1/6] gtp: Allow to create GTP device
 without FDs

Hi Marcin,

I'm sorry if you think this is too much nit-picking, but moving
around functions and removing forward declarations is making it
unneccessarily hard to read the generated diff:

Now it's not possible to see which bits of the code you really changed,
as entire functions have moved position within the file.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 06:55:00PM +0100, Marcin Szycik wrote:
> -static int gtp_hashtable_new(struct gtp_dev *gtp, int hsize);
> -static int gtp_encap_enable(struct gtp_dev *gtp, struct nlattr *data[]);
> +static int gtp_hashtable_new(struct gtp_dev *gtp, int hsize)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	gtp->addr_hash = kmalloc_array(hsize, sizeof(struct hlist_head),
> +				       GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
> +	if (gtp->addr_hash == NULL)

...

I would appreciate if you could do any re-ordering of functions in a
separate, marked "cosmetic" commit, so we can see the actual changes you
make to the code in one patch, and the re-arranging in another.

Thanks!
-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>           http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
                                                  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)