netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipvs: Simplify the allocation of ip_vs

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]

Message-ID: <cf3668f1-cf86-49ff-83f4-47ed8a039d0d@kylinos.cn>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:35:22 +0800
From: Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: ja@....bg, pablo@...filter.org, kadlec@...filter.org, fw@...len.de,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
 netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipvs: Simplify the allocation of ip_vs_conn slab
 caches

On 2024/1/19 23:20, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:22:05AM +0800, Kunwu Chan wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> On 2024/1/17 17:29, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 03:20:45PM +0800, Kunwu Chan wrote:
>>>> Use the new KMEM_CACHE() macro instead of direct kmem_cache_create
>>>> to simplify the creation of SLAB caches.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <chentao@...inos.cn>
>>>
>>> Hi Kunwu Chan,
>>>
>>> I think this is more of a cleanup than a fix,
>>> so it should probably be targeted at 'nf-next' rather than 'net'.
>> Thanks, I'm confused about when to use "nf-next" or "net" or "net-next".
>> "nf-next" means fixing errors for linux-next.git and linux-stable.git, while
>> "nf" or "next" just means linux-next.git?
> 
> Hi Kunwu,
> 
> nf is for fixes for Netfilter (which includes IPVS). The target tree is nf.git
> nf-next is for non-fixes for Netfilter. The target tree if nf-next.git
> 
> net is for fixes for Networking code, which does not have a more specific
> tree (as is the case for Netfilter). The target tree is net.git.
> Liikewise, net-next is for non-fixes for Networking code.
> The target tree is net-next.git
> 
Hi Simon,

Thank you very much for your detailed guidance.
In the future, I will carefully follow the rules you introduced to set 
the appropriate subject for the patch.


> The MAINTAINERS file, and get_maintainers.pl script are useful here.
> 
> nf is merged into net on request from the Netfilter maintainers,
> this is it's path to released kernels.
> Likewise, nf-next is merged into net-next.
> 
Before send the patch, I'll read the MAINTAINERS file, and search in 
email-list to confirm the correct subject.

And if need a new subject patch, i could resend a new one.
>>
>>>
>>> If it is a fix, then I would suggest targeting it at 'nf'
>>> and providing a Fixes tag.
>> I'll keep it in mind in the future.
>>>
>>> The above notwithstanding, this looks good to me.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>    net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c | 4 +---
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c
>>>> index a743db073887..98d7dbe3d787 100644
>>>> --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c
>>>> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c
>>>> @@ -1511,9 +1511,7 @@ int __init ip_vs_conn_init(void)
>>>>    		return -ENOMEM;
>>>>    	/* Allocate ip_vs_conn slab cache */
>>>> -	ip_vs_conn_cachep = kmem_cache_create("ip_vs_conn",
>>>> -					      sizeof(struct ip_vs_conn), 0,
>>>> -					      SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN, NULL);
>>>> +	ip_vs_conn_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(ip_vs_conn, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN);
>>>>    	if (!ip_vs_conn_cachep) {
>>>>    		kvfree(ip_vs_conn_tab);
>>>>    		return -ENOMEM;
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>>    Kunwu
>>
-- 
Thanks,
   Kunwu