netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 08/11] devlink: introduce set of macros and use it for split ops definitions

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: <ZMipBAoEMVglMnsn@nanopsycho>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:41:08 +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, moshe@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
	idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 08/11] devlink: introduce set of macros and
 use it for split ops definitions

Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 06:57:45PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:21:52 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >If you want to use split ops extensively please use the nlspec
>> >and generate the table automatically. Integrating closer with
>> >the spec will have many benefits.  
>> 
>> Yeah, I was thinging about it, it just didn't seem necessary. Okay, will
>> check that out.
>> 
>> Btw, does that mean that any split-ops usage would require generated
>> code? If yes, could you please document that somewhere, probably near
>> the struct?
>
>I wrote it somewhere, probably the commit messages for the split ops.

I believe we need to have it written down in actual codebase.


>The tools are not 100% ready for partial generation I don't want to
>force everyone to do code gen. But the homegrown macros in every family
>are a no go.

So you say that if I spell it out without macros, that would be okay?