netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] net: Remove unused function parameters in skbuff.c

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c405f957-0f88-4c88-98d7-3a27e5230fc8@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 11:02:50 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>,
 David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 Ayush Sawal <ayush.sawal@...lsio.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>, Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com>,
 "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>, Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] net: Remove unused function parameters in
 skbuff.c

On 7/1/25 9:27 AM, Michal Luczaj wrote:
> On 7/1/25 03:18, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 10:33:33 +0200 Michal Luczaj wrote:
>>> Couple of cleanup patches to get rid of unused function parameters around
>>> skbuff.c, plus little things spotted along the way.
>>>
>>> Offshoot of my question in [1], but way more contained. Found by adding
>>> "-Wunused-parameter -Wno-error" to KBUILD_CFLAGS and grepping for specific
>>> skbuff.c warnings.
>>
>> I feel a little ambivalent about the removal of the flags arguments.
>> I understand that they are unused now, but theoretically the operation
>> as a whole has flags so it's not crazy to pass them along.. Dunno.
> 
> I suspect you can say the same about @gfp. Even though they've both became
> irrelevant for the functions that define them. But I understand your
> hesitation. Should I post v3 without this/these changes?

Yes please, I think it would make the series less controversial.

Also I feel like the gfp flag removal is less controversial, as is IMHO
reasonable that skb_splice_from_iter() would not allocate any memory.

Thanks,

Paolo