netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 7/8] tools/net/ynl: Add retry limit for async notification

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: <CAD4GDZx2hEjJWJknS+x++dwPE_UYGiCTYxj2Ntt6BaS=UGZqyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 10:04:52 +0000
From: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>
To: Xiao Liang <shaw.leon@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, 
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, 
	Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 7/8] tools/net/ynl: Add retry limit for async notification

On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 08:46, Xiao Liang <shaw.leon@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 1:16 AM Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's then a question of whether we need the repeat logic in poll_ntf()
> > because it's always possible to use check_ntf() in your own repeat
> > logic. Either way, I'd prefer not to call the parameter "max_retries"
> > because semantically I don't think we are retrying - it is a count of
> > how many times to repeat the poll. Thoughts? Should it be a "duration"
> > parameter?
>
> Yes, a "duration" is better. The meaning of "retry" or "count" is not clear.
> The original check_ntf() is good enough for the test case in this
> series. Could you make the change, or do you prefer me to submit
> another patch?

I'm happy to make the change.

I have prepared a patch which reverts most of 1bf70e6c3a53 and
introduces poll_ntf(interval, duration).

Jakub, is it okay to submit this as a single patch, or would you
prefer me to actually revert 1bf70e6c3a53? (there's about 5 lines
retained from the original patch).