netdev - Re: [RFT net-next 1/6] devlink: expose instance locking and add locked port registering

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: <Yi84eMBqIPJocXHs@nanopsycho>
Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 13:43:36 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, leonro@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [RFT net-next 1/6] devlink: expose instance locking and add
 locked port registering

Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 05:33:32PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 10:15:30 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> The goal is for that API to be the main one, we can rename the devlink_
>>> to something else at the end. The parts of it which are not completely
>>> removed.  
>> 
>> Okay. So please have it as:
>> devl_* - normal
>> __devl_* - unlocked
>
>Isn't it fairly awkward for the main intended API to have __ in the
>name? __ means unsafe / make sure you know what you're doing.
>
>There's little room for confusion here, we have locking asserts
>everywhere.

Well, I think it is common to have "__" prefixed for unlocked variant.
Idk.