netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 01/15] net: devmem: pull struct definitions out of ifdef

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: <ed21bca5-5087-4eff-814c-39180078a700@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 00:16:34 +0100
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
Cc: io-uring@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jesper Dangaard Brouer
 <hawk@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/15] net: devmem: pull struct definitions out of
 ifdef

On 10/9/24 21:17, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 3:16 PM David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk> wrote:
>>
>> From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
>>
>> Don't hide structure definitions under conditional compilation, it only
>> makes messier and harder to maintain. Move struct
>> dmabuf_genpool_chunk_owner definition out of CONFIG_NET_DEVMEM ifdef
>> together with a bunch of trivial inlined helpers using the structure.
>>
> 
> To be honest I think the way it is is better? Having the struct
> defined but always not set (because the code to set it is always
> compiled out) seem worse to me.
> 
> Is there a strong reason to have this? Otherwise maybe drop this?
I can drop it if there are strong opinions on that, but I'm
allergic to ifdef hell and just trying to help to avoid it becoming
so. I even believe it's considered a bad pattern (is it?).

As for a more technical description "why", it reduces the line count
and you don't need to duplicate functions. It's always annoying
making sure the prototypes stay same, but this way it's always
compiled and syntactically checked. And when refactoring anything
like the next patch does, you only need to change one function
but not both. Do you find that convincing?

-- 
Pavel Begunkov