netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 1/9] dcb: app: expose dcb-app functions in new header

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]

Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 11:28:34 +0200
From: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
To: <Daniel.Machon@...rochip.com>
CC: <petrm@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	<stephen@...workplumber.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 1/9] dcb: app: expose dcb-app functions in
 new header


<Daniel.Machon@...rochip.com> writes:

>> > -/* dcb_app.c */
>> > -
>> > -int dcb_cmd_app(struct dcb *dcb, int argc, char **argv);
>> > -enum ieee_attrs_app dcb_app_attr_type_get(__u8 selector);
>> > -bool dcb_app_attr_type_validate(enum ieee_attrs_app type);
>> > -bool dcb_app_selector_validate(enum ieee_attrs_app type, __u8 selector);
>> > -
>> 
>> Why the move to a dedicated header? dcb.h ends up being the only client
>> and everybody consumes the prototypes through that file anyway. I don't
>> fine it necessary.
>
> I did try to rationalize that a bit in the commit description. I thought
> the amount of exposed app functions ended up polutting the dcb header.

I think it's not too bad. The dcb.c section of the header is similarly
large as the app section will be. Even with all the stuff that you
publish, the header is still, what, 150 lines maybe? I find that the
fragmentation isn't necessary and the current setup is just super
simple.

> Maybe it is not that bad - can move them back in the next v.