netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool-next v3 10/16] qsfp: Add JSON output handling to --module-info in SFF8636 modules

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: <2ca4e13a-c260-40dc-b403-5cc73e664e02@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 10:48:01 +0000
From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, mkubecek@...e.cz, matt@...verse.com.au,
 daniel.zahka@...il.com, amcohen@...dia.com, nbu-mlxsw@...hange.nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool-next v3 10/16] qsfp: Add JSON output handling to
 --module-info in SFF8636 modules

On 05/02/2025 02:34, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 15:39:51 +0200 Danielle Ratson wrote:
>> +#define YESNO(x) (((x) != 0) ? "Yes" : "No")
>> +#define ONOFF(x) (((x) != 0) ? "On" : "Off")
> 
> Are these needed ? It appears we have them defined twice after this
> series:
> 
> $ git grep 'define YES'
> cmis.h:#define YESNO(x) (((x) != 0) ? "Yes" : "No")
> module-common.h:#define YESNO(x) (((x) != 0) ? "Yes" : "No")

Are we strict on capital first letter here? If not then maybe
try to use str_yes_no() and remove this definition completely?