From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C58B26FA44; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:29:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739885350; cv=none; b=uXz95558ODBy5MR1dGEjGLI453Y7yLFFilS22g6PRcwvC0XF7Q8QmZzDpSBZpcmtMtu4qGG5lqQfgefDCkyLgfmZ6diqpR9ZPYUd5YxCmns9a/s98WdkUvEQfhm6tq8C1CEdNqyV9yhbIUOSzEE3bNrEl1OP4bHtERQBVNdeWQM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739885350; c=relaxed/simple; bh=D+giwnx2fldVt2NPCnwByiTTAhof1N0hesdxo6LjBJA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cQsQ2hI/fUD5LIOEdezEzyGf/nT6xaIcaraYh1xSL9OoYQk7fxno6bN827V4wGk7dwYCcmSMYNUkyc6TTzYtpG09fv8KxsHcbiFh0O01uIFckjrS1KyGgmOUpHfY8ijVupU3cUCmaj9N0Kdk3+msdXwURIi5QT1W4LFzos65t8I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=d4hpbTSP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="d4hpbTSP" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD522C4CEE6; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:29:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1739885350; bh=D+giwnx2fldVt2NPCnwByiTTAhof1N0hesdxo6LjBJA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=d4hpbTSPtTh3MMtyZt88Vf46BaWKT+sSyPtxQJOZqD89A4ZQO8FsNVncvcAR0Lhz5 /nFUVxvSTo1BXCTN23SgZDvUOE33B2Li0fZsPelUexQlviKxP/aM8oaeY5FcY/Y2FM lf8s495WAAbSt7lBcgTW2XhIfbFQtbSyWMu9yveB1RQvJboxBzdfYNFArpytp079Cn DP8Z1sJSYTZnrqRbuUn9DPsNn+HxZhx4abMPO+6QvN689nHDFsuS56VcmBVokRu55C s/PMGVlT6YzQkJKAsNQ9l5+2ZEDWFnLSjwoVV2MQBw15SaHVzcZuP2+X6TFXOj2Qu8 GCs/vV5uSsDvg== Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:29:05 +0000 From: Simon Horman To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Peter Seiderer , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Shuah Khan , Artem Chernyshev , Nam Cao , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 8/8] net: pktgen: use defines for the various dec/hex number parsing digits lengths Message-ID: <20250218132905.GV1615191@kernel.org> References: <20250213110025.1436160-1-ps.report@gmx.net> <20250213110025.1436160-9-ps.report@gmx.net> <20250214201145.2f824428@kernel.org> <20250216091739.GW1615191@kernel.org> <20250217094740.76a25671@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250217094740.76a25671@kernel.org> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 09:47:40AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 09:17:39 +0000 Simon Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 08:11:45PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:00:25 +0100 Peter Seiderer wrote: > > > > Use defines for the various dec/hex number parsing digits lengths > > > > (hex32_arg/num_arg calls). > > > > > > I don't understand the value of this patch, TBH. > > > > > > Example: > > > > > > +#define HEX_2_DIGITS 2 > > > > > > - len = hex32_arg(&user_buffer[i], 2, &tmp_value); > > > + len = hex32_arg(&user_buffer[i], HEX_2_DIGITS, &tmp_value); > > > > > > The word hex is already there. > > > There is still a two. > > > I don't think the new define has any explanatory power? > > > > > > Previous 7 patches look ready indeed. > > > > This one is on me. I felt the magic number 2 and so on > > was unclear. But if you prefer the code as-is that is fine by me too. > > I agree that it's a bit hard to guess what the call does and what > the arguments are. To me at least, the constants as named don't help. > We can get a third opinion, or if none is provided skip the patch for > now? Yes, I see your point. No objections from me to skipping this patch.