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:
 <DM6PR12MB451696EDF6DF09074926E8F3D8F72@DM6PR12MB4516.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 12:13:13 +0000
From: Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, Jakub Kicinski
	<kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "mkubecek@...e.cz"
	<mkubecek@...e.cz>, "matt@...verse.com.au" <matt@...verse.com.au>,
	"daniel.zahka@...il.com" <daniel.zahka@...il.com>, Amit Cohen
	<amcohen@...dia.com>, NBU-mlxsw <NBU-mlxsw@...hange.nvidia.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH ethtool-next v3 10/16] qsfp: Add JSON output handling to
 --module-info in SFF8636 modules

> From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 12:48
> 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; Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>; NBU-mlxsw
> <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?

I only moved it to a different file, I didn’t find a reason to change it right now. 
I can add a separate patch to change all the YESNO and ONOFF uses, and remove those definitions, do you want me to do that?
To be honest, I don’t know if there is a justification to do it in that patchset, considering it is a pretty long anyway.