netdev - Re: [PATCHv5 net-next 1/4] rtnetlink: add new helper rtnl_configure_link

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 23:40:21 +0200
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
Cc:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
        Florent Fourcot <florent.fourcot@...irst.fr>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 net-next 1/4] rtnetlink: add new helper
 rtnl_configure_link_notify()




Le 30/09/2022 à 18:01, Guillaume Nault a écrit :
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:22:19PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> Le 30/09/2022 à 11:45, Hangbin Liu a écrit :
>>> -int rtnl_configure_link(struct net_device *dev, const struct ifinfomsg *ifm)
>>> +static int rtnl_configure_link_notify(struct net_device *dev, const struct ifinfomsg *ifm,
>>> +				      struct nlmsghdr *nlh, u32 pid)
>> But not here. Following patches also use this order instead of the previous one.
>> For consistency, it could be good to keep the same order everywhere.
> 
> Yes, since a v6 will be necessary anyway, let's be consistent about the
> order of parameters. That helps reading the code.
> 
> While there, I'd prefer to use 'portid' instead of 'pid'. I know
> rtnetlink.c uses both, but 'portid' is more explicit and is what
> af_netlink.c generally uses.
> 
+1

pid is historical but too confusing.