netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v9 1/7] net/sched: cls_api: Support hardware miss to tc action

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]

Message-ID: <c060bf5f-4598-8a12-91d4-6340ecd24e14@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 19:24:52 +0000
From:   Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>
Cc:     Paul Blakey <paulb@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 1/7] net/sched: cls_api: Support hardware miss
 to tc action

On 14/02/2023 18:48, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 02:31:06PM +0200, Oz Shlomo wrote:
>> Actually, I think the current naming scheme of act_cookie and miss_cookie
>> makes sense.
> 
> Then perhaps,
> act_cookie here -> instance_cookie
> miss_cookie -> config_cookie
> 
> Sorry for the bikeshedding, btw, but these cookies are getting
> confusing. We need them to taste nice :-}

I'm with Oz, keep the current name for act_cookie.

(In my ideal world, it'd just be called cookie, and the existing
 cookie in struct flow_action_entry would be renamed user_cookie.
 Because act_cookie is the same thing conceptually as
 flow_cls_offload.cookie.  Though I wonder if that means it
 belongs in struct flow_offload_action instead?)

-ed