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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAK+SQuRJd8mmwKNKNM_qsQ-h4WhLX9OcUcV9YSgAQnzG1wGMwg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:29:39 +0900 From: Juhee Kang <claudiajkang@...il.com> To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, skhan@...uxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: use netdev_unregistering instead of open code On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 5:27 PM Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 05:25:01PM +0900, Juhee Kang wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 5:19 PM Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 05:05:08PM +0900, Juhee Kang wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > > > > > > index d66c73c1c734..f3f9394f0b5a 100644 > > > > > > --- a/net/core/dev.c > > > > > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > > > > > > @@ -2886,8 +2886,7 @@ int netif_set_real_num_tx_queues(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int txq) > > > > > > if (txq < 1 || txq > dev->num_tx_queues) > > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (dev->reg_state == NETREG_REGISTERED || > > > > > > - dev->reg_state == NETREG_UNREGISTERING) { > > > > > > + if (dev->reg_state == NETREG_REGISTERED || netdev_unregistering(dev)) { > > > > > > ASSERT_RTNL(); > > > > > > > > > > > > rc = netdev_queue_update_kobjects(dev, dev->real_num_tx_queues, > > > > > > > > > > Is there any value in adding a netdev_registered() helper? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The open code which is reg_state == NETREG_REGISTERED used 37 times on > > > > some codes related to the network. I think that the > > > > netdev_registered() helper is valuable. > > > > > > Thanks, FWIIW, that seems likely to me too. > > > > Thanks! > > Apart from this patch, is it okay to send a patch that adds the > > netdev_registered helper function later? > > In my opinion that would be good: let's fix one thing at a time. I agree with you. I will send a patch by applying netdev_registered() helper function by directory.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists