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: <822ec781-ce1e-35ef-d448-a3078f68c04f@amd.com> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 23:19:28 -0700 From: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: brett.creeley@....com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, drivers@...sando.io, leon@...nel.org, jiri@...nulli.us Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 01/14] pds_core: initial framework for pds_core PF driver On 3/27/23 5:43 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 21:07:22 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote: >>> Don't put core devlink functionality in a separate file. >>> You're not wrapping all pci_* calls in your own wrappers, why are you >>> wrapping delvink? And use explicit locking, please. devl_* APIs. >> >> Wrapping the devlink_register gives me the ability to abstract out the >> bit of additional logic that gets added in a later patch, and now the >> locking logic you mention, and is much like how other relatively current >> drivers have done it, such as in ionic, ice, and mlx5. > > What are you "abstracting away", exactly? Which "later patch"? > I'm not going to read the 5k LoC submission to figure out what > you're trying to say :( I'm saying that more code is added in later patches around the devlink_register() for the health (patch 4) and parameters (patch 11). This allows me to have a simple line in the main probe logic that does the devlink-register related things, and then have the details collected together off to the side. Obviously, when I update the code for using the devl_* interfaces and explicit locking, those two patches will change a little. sln
Powered by blists - more mailing lists