Subject: Re: [PATCH v8.1 net-next 01/23] net/tcp: Prepare tcp_md5sig_pool for TCP-AO

From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 21:46:19 +0200

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 05:06:30PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On 7/24/23 14:11, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 05:18:52PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Dmitry,
> > 
> > some minor nits from my side.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >> +/**
> >> + * tcp_sigpool_start - disable bh and start using tcp_sigpool_ahash
> >> + * @id: tcp_sigpool that was previously allocated by tcp_sigpool_alloc_ahash()
> >> + * @c: returned tcp_sigpool for usage (uninitialized on failure)
> >> + */
> >> +int tcp_sigpool_start(unsigned int id, struct tcp_sigpool *c);
> >> +/**
> >> + * tcp_sigpool_end - enable bh and stop using tcp_sigpool
> > 
> > nit: as this is a kernel doc, please document @c here.
> 
> Thanks, yeah, I also noticed that on netdev/kdoc and there are some
> other nits on the patchwork that Intel's build bot didn't report to my
> surprise. Will address them in v9.

Always room for improvement :)

> >> + */
> >> +void tcp_sigpool_end(struct tcp_sigpool *c);
> >> +size_t tcp_sigpool_algo(unsigned int id, char *buf, size_t buf_len);
> >>  /* - functions */
> >>  int tcp_v4_md5_hash_skb(char *md5_hash, const struct tcp_md5sig_key *key,
> >>  			const struct sock *sk, const struct sk_buff *skb);
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >> @@ -1439,8 +1443,7 @@ int tcp_v4_md5_hash_skb(char *md5_hash, const struct tcp_md5sig_key *key,
> >>  			const struct sock *sk,
> >>  			const struct sk_buff *skb)
> >>  {
> >> -	struct tcp_md5sig_pool *hp;
> >> -	struct ahash_request *req;
> >> +	struct tcp_sigpool hp;
> >>  	const struct tcphdr *th = tcp_hdr(skb);
> >>  	__be32 saddr, daddr;
> > 
> > nit: please consider using reverse xmas tree - longest line to shortest -
> >      for these local variable declarations.
> > 
> > 	const struct tcphdr *th = tcp_hdr(skb);
> > 	struct tcp_sigpool hp;
> > 	__be32 saddr, daddr;
> > 
> > Likewise, elsewhere, when it can be done without excess churn.
> 
> Yeah, fail enough, I usually keep it Xmas-like, but sometimes they slip
> in unnoticed. I'll take a look over the patches.

Thanks. I also flagged this in my review of 3/23,
as I hadn't noticed your response here.