netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] sfc: support PTP over IPv6/UDP

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:   Tue, 30 Aug 2022 08:11:39 +0200
From:   Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     ecree.xilinx@...il.com, habetsm.xilinx@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] sfc: support PTP over IPv6/UDP

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 2:29 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:03:44 +0200 Íñigo Huguet wrote:
> > > We usually defer refactoring for coding style issues until someone
> > > is otherwise touching the code, so surrounding code doing something
> > > against the guidance may be misleading.
> >
> > Yes but I'm not sure what I should do in this case... all other
> > efx_filter_xxx functions are in filter.h, so putting this one in a
> > different place could make it difficult to understand how the files
> > are organized. Should I put the declaration in the header (without
> > `inline`) and the definition in a new filter.c file? Should I move all
> > other definitions to this new file?
>
> Hm, I see, perhaps adding a new filter.c would be too much for your set.
> Let's leave the definition in the header then.
>
> > Also, what's exactly the rule, apart from not using `inline`, to avoid
> > doing the same thing again: to avoid function definitions directly in
> > header files?
>
> Not sure I'm parsing the question right, but it's okay to add small
> functions in local headers. Here it seem to have only been used in
> one place, and I didn't see the context.
>

I expresed it terribly badly, but you parsed it right. Thanks, now I
understand what your concern was.

-- 
Íñigo Huguet