netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 08/14] net: pse-pd: Split ethtool_get

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <690fc7d2-c235-450c-981a-a889f976936e@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:37:32 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Kyle Swenson <kyle.swenson@....tech>,
 Dent Project <dentproject@...uxfoundation.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
 Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/14] net: pse-pd: Split ethtool_get_status into
 multiple callbacks

On 1/8/25 6:36 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 10:27:36 +0100 Kory Maincent wrote:
>>> Is there a reason this is defined in ethtool.h?  
>>
>> I moved in to ethtool because the PSE drivers does not need it anymore.
>> I can keep it in pse.h.
>>
>>> I have a weak preference towards keeping it in pse-pd/pse.h
>>> since touching ethtool.h rebuilds bulk of networking code.
>>> From that perspective it's also suboptimal that pse-pd/pse.h
>>> pulls in ethtool.h.  
>>
>> Do you prefer the other way around, ethtool.h pulls in pse.h?
> 
> No, no, I'd say the order of deceasing preference is:
>  - headers are independent
>  - smaller header includes bigger one
>  - bigger one includes smaller one

In this specific case, given the widespread inclusion of ethtool.h, I
think keeping the struct definition in pse.h is necessary - the reduced
incremental builds time would be a good enough reason for it.

Thanks!

Paolo