netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/5] net-smnp: reorganize SNMP fast path variables

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:11:39 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
	Mubashir Adnan Qureshi <mubashirq@...gle.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Chao Wu <wwchao@...gle.com>, Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/5] net-smnp: reorganize SNMP fast path
 variables

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 08:55:44AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/17/23 1:15 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Perhaps add a big comment in the file itself, instead of repeating it
> > on future commit changelogs ?
> 
> I think a comment in the file would be better. I spent a fair amount of
> time reviewing code double checking the impact of the moves; a comment
> in that header file would have been helpful.

We probably want both.

A patch to a uapi file is something which as a reviewer immediately
triggers questions about is it going to break backwards
compatibility. Having it clearly mentioned in the commit message
immediately answers those questions. I would say it is best practice
to do so.

Patching the header itself makes a lot of sense if we actually think
it is useless being in uapi.

   Andrew