netdev - Re: [PATCH resubmit net 1/2] net: fec: Forward-declare `fec_ptp

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: <449a855a-e3e2-4eed-b8bd-ce64d6f66788@prolan.hu>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:49:29 +0200
From: Csókás Bence <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, <imx@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Frank Li
	<Frank.li@....com>, Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>, Shenwei Wang
	<shenwei.wang@....com>, Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resubmit net 1/2] net: fec: Forward-declare
 `fec_ptp_read()`

On 8/8/24 11:41, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 03:53:17PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 10:29:17AM +0200, Csókás, Bence wrote:
>>> This function is used in `fec_ptp_enable_pps()` through
>>> struct cyclecounter read(). Forward declarations make
>>> it clearer, what's happening.
>>
>> In general, forward declarations are not liked. It is better to move
>> the code to before it is used.
>>
>> Since this is a minimal fix for stable, lets allow it. But please wait
>> for net to be merged into net-next, and submit a cleanup patch which
>> does move fec_ptp_read() earlier and remove the forward declaration.
> 
> That makes sense.
> 
> However, is this a fix?
> It's not clear to me that it is.

Well, it's not clear to me either what constitutes as a "fix" versus 
"just a cleanup". But, whatever floats Andrew's boat...

> And if it is a pre-requisite for patch 2/2,
> well that doesn't seem to be a fix.

It indeed is.

> So in all, I'm somewhat confused.
> And wonder if all changes can go via net-next.

That's probably what will be happening.

Bence