From: Allen <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:06:47 +0530
>>
>> > @@ -1562,10 +1562,11 @@ static void ace_watchdog(struct net_device *data,
>> > unsigned int txqueue)
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> > -static void ace_tasklet(unsigned long arg)
>> > +static void ace_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t)
>> > {
>> > - struct net_device *dev = (struct net_device *) arg;
>> > - struct ace_private *ap = netdev_priv(dev);
>> > + struct ace_private *ap = from_tasklet(ap, t, ace_tasklet);
>> > + struct net_device *dev = (struct net_device *)((char *)ap -
>> > + ALIGN(sizeof(struct net_device),
>> > NETDEV_ALIGN));
>> > int cur_size;
>> >
>>
>> I don't see this is as an improvement. The 'dev' assignment looks so
>> incredibly fragile and exposes so many internal details about netdev
>> object allocation, alignment, and layout.
>>
>> Who is going to find and fix this if someone changes how netdev object
>> allocation works?
>>
>
> Thanks for pointing it out. I'll see if I can fix it to keep it simple.
Just add a backpointer to the netdev from the netdev_priv() if you
absolutely have too.
>> I don't want to apply this, it sets a very bad precedent. The existing
>> code is so much cleaner and easier to understand and audit.
>
> Will you pick the rest of the patches or would they have to wait till
> this one is
> fixed.
I never pick up a partial series, ever. So yes you will have to fix these
two patches up and resubmit the entire thing.
