netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 net 1/2] net: ethernet: ocelot: rename vcap

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]

Date:   Sat, 30 Apr 2022 10:36:15 -0700
From:   Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net 1/2] net: ethernet: ocelot: rename vcap_props to
 clearly be an ocelot member

Hi Jakub,

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 07:07:52PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:30:48 -0700 Colin Foster wrote:
> > The vcap_props structure is part of the ocelot driver. It is in the process
> > of being exported to a wider scope, so renaming it to match other structure
> > definitions in the include/soc/mscc/ocelot.h makes sense.
> > 
> > I'm splitting the rename operation into this separate commit, since it
> > should make the actual bug fix (next commit) easier to review.
> 
> Sure, but is it really necessary to do it now, or can we do it later 
> in net-next? There's only one struct vcap_props in the tree AFAICT.

I see your point. There wouldn't be a name collision, so the change
isn't absolutely necessary - just a nice convention. So I could have
patched the "bug" in net, then done the rename in net-next. I hadn't
considered this.

It seems like this patch set is bound for net-next in some way, shape,
or form, so it might be a non-issue.

Thanks for the feedback!