netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 01/10 iwl-next] idpf: implement virtchnl transaction manager

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: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 06:35:26 -0800
From: Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Przemek
 Kitszel" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Igor Bagnucki
	<igor.bagnucki@...el.com>, Joshua Hay <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10 iwl-next] idpf: implement virtchnl transaction
 manager

On 2/22/2024 5:04 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:53:25 +0100
> 
>> From: Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>
>> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 12:16:37 -0800
>>
>>> On 2/21/2024 4:15 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>>> From: Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:49:40 -0800
>>>>
>>>>> This starts refactoring how virtchnl messages are handled by adding a
>>>>> transaction manager (idpf_vc_xn_manager).
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for not noticing this before, but this struct can be local to
>>>> idpf_virtchnl.c.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nice catch, I can definitely move this. I'm also considering though, all
>>> of these structs I'm adding here are better suited in idpf_virtchnl.c
>>> all together. I think the main thing preventing that is the
>>> idpf_vc_xn_manager field in idpf_adapter. Would it be overkill to make
>>> the field in idpf_adapter a pointer so I can forward declare and kalloc
>>> it? I think I can then move everything to idpf_virtchnl.c. Or do you see
>>> a better alternative? Or is it not worth the effort? Thanks!
>>
>> Since it's not hotpath, you can make it a pointer and move everything to
>> virtchnl.c, sounds nice.
> 
> Since you're sending v6 anyway, could you maybe move virtchnl function
> declarations to new idpf_virtchnl.h to make idpf.h a bit less heavy?
> Something like I did in this commit[0].
>

I can certainly do that as well, makes sense to me. I agree idpf.h is 
overloaded. Thanks!

>>
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * struct idpf_vc_xn_manager - Manager for tracking transactions
>>>>> + * @ring: backing and lookup for transactions
>>>>> + * @free_xn_bm: bitmap for free transactions
>>>>> + * @xn_bm_lock: make bitmap access synchronous where necessary
>>>>> + * @salt: used to make cookie unique every message
>>>>> + */
>>>>
>>>> [...]
> 
> [0]
> https://github.com/alobakin/linux/commit/0c8fae557f4e6ec1ae4353a68c9c5c9c2b70c5e9
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek