netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] net: ethernet: ti: RPMsg based shared memory ethernet driver

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: <08696402-e0e3-4559-a02d-84cac79871ab@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:54:57 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yojana Mallik <y-mallik@...com>
Cc: schnelle@...ux.ibm.com, wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com,
	diogo.ivo@...mens.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, horms@...nel.org,
	vigneshr@...com, rogerq@...com, danishanwar@...com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srk@...com, rogerq@...nel.org,
	s-vadapalli@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] net: ethernet: ti: RPMsg based shared
 memory ethernet driver

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 02:26:06PM +0530, Yojana Mallik wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 6/2/24 21:51, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> +struct request_message {
> >> +	u32 type; /* Request Type */
> >> +	u32 id;	  /* Request ID */
> >> +} __packed;
> >> +
> >> +struct response_message {
> >> +	u32 type;	/* Response Type */
> >> +	u32 id;		/* Response ID */
> >> +} __packed;
> >> +
> >> +struct notify_message {
> >> +	u32 type;	/* Notify Type */
> >> +	u32 id;		/* Notify ID */
> >> +} __packed;
> > 
> > These are basically identical.
> > 
> 
> The first patch introduces only the RPMsg-based driver.
> The RPMsg driver is registered as a network device in the second patch.
> struct icve_mac_addr mac_addr is added as a member to
> struct request_message in the second patch. Similarly struct icve_shm shm_info
> is added as a member to struct response_message in the second patch. From
> second patch onward struct request_message and struct response_message are not
> identical. These members are used for the network device driver. As this patch
> introduces only RPMsg-based ethernet driver these members were not used in this
> patch and hence not mentioned in this patch. I understand this has led to the
> confusion of the structures looking similar in this patch. Kindly suggest if I
> should add these members in this patch itself instead of introducing them in
> the next patch.

I think your first patch should add documentation of the whole
protocol. With a clear understanding of what the end goal is, it
becomes easier to understand the step by step implementation stages.

	Andrew