netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 14/15] devlink: move port_del() to devlink_port

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: <ZHRi0qZD/Hsjn0Fq@nanopsycho>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 10:31:14 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, leon@...nel.org, saeedm@...dia.com,
	moshe@...dia.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
	anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, tariqt@...dia.com, idosch@...dia.com,
	petrm@...dia.com, simon.horman@...igine.com, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
	habetsm.xilinx@...il.com, michal.wilczynski@...el.com,
	jacob.e.keller@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 14/15] devlink: move port_del() to
 devlink_port_ops

Mon, May 29, 2023 at 08:33:34AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Sat, 27 May 2023 09:42:45 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >I didn't think this thru last time, I thought port_new will move 
>> >in another patch, but that's impossible (obviously?).
>> >
>> >Isn't it kinda weird that the new callback is in one place and del
>> >callback is in another? Asymmetric ?  
>> 
>> Yeah, I don't know how to do it differently. port_new() has to be
>> devlink op, as it operates not on the port but on the device. However,
>> port_del() operates on device. I was thinking about changing the name of
>> port_del() to port_destructor() or something like that which would make
>> the symmetricity issue bit less visible. IDK, up to you. One way or
>> another, I think this could be easily done as a follow-up (I have 15
>> patches now already anyway).
>
>One could argue logically removing a port is also an operation of 
>the parent (i.e. the devlink instance). The fact that the port gets
>destroyed in the process is secondary. Ergo maybe we should skip 
>this patch?

Well, the port_del() could differ for different port flavours. The
embedding structure of struct devlink_port is also different.

Makes sense to me to skip the flavour switch and have one port_del() for
each port.