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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2022 16:53:20 +0300 From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> To: Mattias Forsblad <mattias.forsblad@...il.com> Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 4/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxxx: Add RMU functionality. On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:37:17AM +0200, Mattias Forsblad wrote: > >> + chip->rmu.rmu_ops->get_rmon = mv88e6xxx_rmu_stats_get; > >> + > >> + if (chip->info->ops->rmu_disable) > >> + return chip->info->ops->rmu_disable(chip); > > > > Why is a setup function calling disable? > > So Vladimir Oltean commented before: > "I think it's very important for the RMU to still start as disabled. > You enable it dynamically when the master goes up." This, plus the fact that mv88e6xxx_rmu_setup() already exists in the tree, and calls chip->info->ops->rmu_disable(). It seems like that doesn't need to change. Mattias is moving it around, and makes it seem as if something is being changed. Maybe simple code movement could be split into a separate change.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists