netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/8] net/mlx5: HWS, Refactor and export rule skip logic

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: <2eeb79cb-eb2e-4d0a-a05e-32f940434d95@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:41:30 +0300
From: Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn@...dia.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 saeedm@...dia.com, gal@...dia.com, leonro@...dia.com, tariqt@...dia.com,
 Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, moshe@...dia.com,
 Vlad Dogaru <vdogaru@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/8] net/mlx5: HWS, Refactor and export rule
 skip logic

On 25-Jun-25 12:45, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 03:35:52AM +0300, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>> Thanks for reviewing the patches!
>>
>> On 24-Jun-25 21:38, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 08:22:21PM +0300, Mark Bloch wrote:
>>>> From: Vlad Dogaru <vdogaru@...dia.com>
>>>>
>>>> The bwc layer will use `mlx5hws_rule_skip` to keep track of numbers of
>>>> RX and TX rules individually, so export this function for future usage.
>>>>
>>>> While we're in there, reduce nesting by adding a couple of early return
>>>> statements.
>>>
>>> I'm all for reducing nesting. But this patch has two distinct changes.
>>> Please consider splitting it into two patches.
>>
>> Not sure I'd send the refactor thing alone - it isn't worth the effort
>> IMHO... But since I'm already in here - sure, will sent it in a separate
>> patch.
> 
> FWIIW, I think the refactor is fine in the context of this patchset.
> But I do feel that it being a separate patch within the patchset is best.

Ack, thanks