netdev - Re: DRY rules - extract into inline helper functions

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: <ade53d2b-193a-4f78-b2d4-186919359103@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:37:33 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Atlas Yu <atlas.yu@...onical.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, hau@...ltek.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, nic_swsd@...ltek.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: DRY rules - extract into inline helper functions

On 27.03.2024 03:15, Atlas Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:29 AM Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> cond like conditional would be a little too generic here IMO.
>> Something like rtl_dash_loop_wait_high()/low() would make clear
>> that the poll loop is relevant only if DASH is enabled.
> 
> I don't know if cond might be reused later somewhere, so I am thinking of
> creating both dash_loop_wait and cond_loop_wait. And specifying them to be
> inline functions explicitly. What do you think?

It's about replacing a very simple check in 6 places. So we shouldn't
over-engineer the helpers.
It's discouraged to use inline in source files. Kernel standard is to let
the compiler decide.