netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ieee802154: Fix compilation error when CONFIG_IEEE802154_NL802154

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:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 11:21:50 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ieee802154: Fix compilation error when
 CONFIG_IEEE802154_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL is disabled

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 23:31:24 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Hm, let me add 802154 folks.
> 
> Either we should treat the commands as reserved in terms of uAPI
> even if they get removed the IDs won't be reused, or they are for
> testing purposes only.
> 
> In the former case we should just remove the #ifdef around the values
> in the enum, it just leads to #ifdef proliferation while having no
> functional impact.
> 
> In the latter case we should start error checking from the last
> non-experimental command, as we don't care about breaking the
> experimental ones.

I haven't gone thru all of my inbox yet, but I see no reply from Stefan
or Alexander. My vote is to un-hide the EXPERIMENTAL commands.