netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 12/13] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Add and use a GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE

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]

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:04:13 +0200
From: Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com, hauke@...ke-m.de, andrew@...n.ch,
 f.fainelli@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/13] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Add and use a
 GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE_FID macro

On 2024-06-07 16:27, Martin Schiller wrote:
> While looking again at this diff above, I noticed that val[0] is set
> incorrectly. Shouldn't it be either "port << 4" or (after the previous 
> patch)
> "FIELD_PREP(GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE_PORT, port);" instead of 
> "BIT(port)"?

Please ignore this comment. The format of the port specification differs
for static and dynamic (learned) entries.