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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZlzGzcwn5JRG9kx2@LQ3V64L9R2>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 12:23:57 -0700
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	nalramli@...tly.com, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"open list:MELLANOX MLX5 core VPI driver" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v3 1/2] net/mlx5e: Add helpers to calculate txq
 and ch idx

On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 12:39:13PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 12:35:57PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 03:16:26AM +0000, Joe Damato wrote:
> > > Add two helpers to:
> > > 
> > > 1. Compute the txq_ix given a channel and a tc offset (tc_to_txq_ix).
> > > 2. Compute the channel index and tc offset given a txq_ix
> > >    (txq_ix_to_chtc_ix).
> > > 
> > > The first helper, tc_to_txq_ix, is used in place of the mathematical
> > > expressionin mlx5e_open_sqs when txq_ix values are computed.
> > > 
> > > The second helper, txq_ix_to_chtc_ix, will be used in a following patch.
> > 
> > Hi Joe,
> > 
> > I think it would be best to add txq_ix_to_chtc_ix as part of patch that
> > uses it, because the current arrangement will cause allmodconfigs with
> > clang-18 and W=1 to fail due to txq_ix_to_chtc_ix being unused.
> > 
> > ...
> 
> Sorry, one more thing.
> 
> Please don't use inline in .c files unless there is a demonstrable
> reason - f.e. performance - to do so. Rather, let the compiler figure
> out when to inline functions.

Sure, I'll make sure in the next revision to include the second
helper in the second patch instead and avoid using "inline" in both
cases.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ