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: <20231225170233.GI5962@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2023 17:02:33 +0000 From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> To: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com, andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 07/13] bnxt_en: Add new BNXT_FLTR_INSERTED flag to bnxt_filter_base struct. On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 08:22:04PM -0800, Michael Chan wrote: > Change the unused flag to BNXT_FLTR_INSERTED. To prepare for multiple > pathways that an ntuple filter can be deleted, we add this flag. These > filter structures can be retreived from the RCU hash table but only > the caller that sees that the BNXT_FLTR_INSERTED flag is set can delete > the filter structure and clear the flag under spinlock. > > Reviewed-by: Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com> > Reviewed-by: Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com> > Reviewed-by: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com> > Signed-off-by: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com> ... > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.h > index 3f4e4708f7d8..867cab036e13 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.h > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.h > @@ -1348,7 +1348,7 @@ struct bnxt_filter_base { > u16 vf_idx; > unsigned long state; > #define BNXT_FLTR_VALID 0 > -#define BNXT_FLTR_UPDATE 1 > +#define BNXT_FLTR_INSERTED 1 Hi Michael, a minor nit from my side, which I don't think you need to bother with unless you need to create v3 for some other reason. I think that either the hunk above should be squashed into patch 1 of this series. Or, better IMHO, BNXT_FLTR_UPDATE should simply be dropped from patch 1. > > struct rcu_head rcu; > };
Powered by blists - more mailing lists