netdev - Re: [RFCv5 PATCH net-next 01/20] net: rename net_device->features to net_device->active

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: <Yj3lPVqrN1APvp1X@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:52:29 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "shenjian (K)" <shenjian15@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        ecree.xilinx@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        alexandr.lobakin@...el.com, saeed@...nel.org, leon@...nel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...neuler.org,
        lipeng321@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFCv5 PATCH net-next 01/20] net: rename net_device->features to
 net_device->active_features

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 06:35:49PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:29:51 +0800 shenjian (K) wrote:
> > 在 2022/3/25 9:03, Jakub Kicinski 写道:
> > > I see you mention that the work is not complete in the cover letter.
> > > Either way this patch seems unnecessary, you can call the helpers
> > > for "active" features like you do, but don't start by renaming the
> > > existing field. The patch will be enormous.
> > > .  
> > I agree that this patch will be enormous,  I made this patch from suggestion
> > from Andrew Lunn in RFCv3.[1]   Willit make people confused
> > for help name inconsistent with feature name ?
> > 
> > [1]https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg777767.html
> 
> Thanks, not sure if I see a suggestion there from Andrew or just 
> a question. Maybe you can add a comment instead to avoid surprising
> people?

Goes and looks at what i wrote.

> Here _hw_ makes sense. But i think we need some sort of
> consistency. Either drop the _active_ from the function name, or
> rename the netdev field active_features.

So i suggested an either/or. In retrospect, the or seems like a bad
idea, this patch will be enormous. So i would suggest the other
option, netdev_set_active_features() gets renamed to
netdev_set__features()

	Andrew