netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] netdev_features: remove unused __UNUSED_NETIF_F

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: <6c72dbc6-98a1-4682-97ca-e2f76c81a178@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:34:13 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern
	<dsahern@...nel.org>, Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Andrew Lunn
	<andrew@...n.ch>, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
	<nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] netdev_features: remove unused
 __UNUSED_NETIF_F_1

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:31:29 -0700

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:19:24 +0200 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> I was simply suggesting to correct the changelog, and make clear we
>>> need a recent enough ethtool.  
>>
>> Yeah I got it, thanks. Will reword.
>>
>>> We can not simply say that ethtool always supported the modern way
>>> (ETH_SS_FEATURES)  
>>
>> I didn't work with Linux at all back in 2011, so I didn't even know
>> there were older ways of handling this :D Always something to learn, nice.
> 
> Are we removing the bit definitions just for code cleanliness?

Uhm, no, to free more bits to be able to add new features.

> On one hand it may be good to make any potential breakage obvious,
> on the other we could avoid regressions if we stick to reserving 
> the bits, and reusing them, but the bits we don't delete could remain
> at their current position?

Hmm, sounds fine. IOW just rename all the bits I remove to
__UNUSED_NETIF_F_xx?

Thanks,
Olek