netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx ops support

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: <19d66fa8-f42c-4c52-b42b-49994f29e293@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 05:59:10 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yibo Dong <dong100@...se.com>
Cc: andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org,
	corbet@....net, gur.stavi@...wei.com, maddy@...ux.ibm.com,
	mpe@...erman.id.au, danishanwar@...com, lee@...ger.us,
	gongfan1@...wei.com, lorenzo@...nel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
	Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com, lukas.bulwahn@...hat.com,
	alexanderduyck@...com, richardcochran@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx ops support

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 10:43:02AM +0800, Yibo Dong wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 04:13:52AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > +const struct mucse_mbx_operations mucse_mbx_ops_generic = {
> > > +	.init_params = mucse_init_mbx_params_pf,
> > > +	.read = mucse_read_mbx_pf,
> > > +	.write = mucse_write_mbx_pf,
> > > +	.read_posted = mucse_read_posted_mbx,
> > > +	.write_posted = mucse_write_posted_mbx,
> > > +	.check_for_msg = mucse_check_for_msg_pf,
> > > +	.check_for_ack = mucse_check_for_ack_pf,
> > > +	.configure = mucse_mbx_configure_pf,
> > > +};
> > 
> > As far as i can see, this is the only instance of
> > mucse_mbx_operations. Will there be other instances of this structure?
> > 
> > 	Andrew
> > 
> 
> Yes, It is the only instance. Not other instances at all.
> Is there any improvement?

So throw away the abstraction and call the functions directly. Only
add abstractions if you have some differences to abstract over. Only
make the driver more complex and harder to understand, if you need to
make the driver more complex and harder to understand.... KISS.

	Andrew