netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v1 1/2] ice: fix W=1 headers mismatch

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]

Message-ID: <cb406635-0c44-ef7e-2bc9-3c1ecd5c2779@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2023 13:29:41 -0700
From:   Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:     Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
CC:     <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v1 1/2] ice: fix W=1 headers
 mismatch

On 3/14/2023 6:54 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Brandeburg, Jesse <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>

>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_txrx_lib.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_txrx_lib.c
>> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ int __ice_xmit_xdp_ring(struct xdp_buff *xdp, struct ice_tx_ring *xdp_ring,
>>   * ice_finalize_xdp_rx - Bump XDP Tx tail and/or flush redirect map
>>   * @xdp_ring: XDP ring
>>   * @xdp_res: Result of the receive batch
>> + * @first_idx: index to write from caller
>>   *
>>   * This function bumps XDP Tx tail and/or flush redirect map, and
>>   * should be called when a batch of packets has been processed in the
> 
> How is Rx hotpath related to "ice_switch" O_o :D Those are 2 separate
> fixes or at least the cover shouldn't say they belong to one topic.

Thanks for the review:

Quoting myself:
> Fix a couple of small issues, with a small refactor to correctly handle
> a possible misconfiguration of RDMA filters, and some trivial function
> headers that didn't match their function.

Please see the last half of the sentence, regarding fixing these trivial
comment-only issues. If you still think that isn't enough I can reword
or resend, but in this case I don't think there is anything wrong, do
you agree after my explanation? Did I miss something?

Thanks,
Jesse