On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 15:32:38 +0200 Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> +/**
> + * pse_ethtool_get_status - get status of PSE control
> + * @psec: PSE control pointer
> + * @extack: extack for reporting useful error messages
> + * @status: struct to store PSE status
> + */
> +int pse_ethtool_get_status(struct pse_control *psec,
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> + struct pse_control_status *status)
> +{
> + const struct pse_controller_ops *ops;
> + int err;
> +
> + if (!psec)
> + return 0;
Defensive programming?
> + if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(psec)))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ops = psec->pcdev->ops;
> +
> + if (!ops->ethtool_get_status) {
> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack,
> + "PSE driver does not support status report");
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> +
> + mutex_lock(&psec->pcdev->lock);
> + err = ops->ethtool_get_status(psec->pcdev, psec->id, extack, status);
> + mutex_unlock(&psec->pcdev->lock);
> +
> + return err;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pse_ethtool_get_status);
> +
> +/**
> + * pse_ethtool_set_config - set PSE control configuration
> + * @psec: PSE control pointer
> + * @extack: extack for reporting useful error messages
> + * @config: Configuration of the test to run
> + */
> +int pse_ethtool_set_config(struct pse_control *psec,
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> + const struct pse_control_config *config)
> +{
> + const struct pse_controller_ops *ops;
> + int err;
> +
> + if (!psec)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(psec)))
> + return -EINVAL;
ditto
> + ops = psec->pcdev->ops;
> +
> + if (!ops->ethtool_set_config) {
> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack,
> + "PSE driver does not configuration");
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> +
> + mutex_lock(&psec->pcdev->lock);
> + err = ops->ethtool_set_config(psec->pcdev, psec->id, extack, config);
> + mutex_unlock(&psec->pcdev->lock);
> +
> + return err;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pse_ethtool_set_config);
> +int pse_ethtool_get_status(struct pse_control *psec,
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> + struct pse_control_status *status)
> +{
> + return -ENOTSUPP;
EOPNOTSUPP, please run checkpatch --strict on this patch.
All of the complaints look legit at a glance.
> + ETHTOOL_MSG_PSE_NTF,
I don't see you calling the ethtool_notify() function, does this ever
> +static int pse_prepare_data(const struct ethnl_req_info *req_base,
> + struct ethnl_reply_data *reply_base,
> + struct genl_info *info)
> +{
> + struct pse_reply_data *data = PSE_REPDATA(reply_base);
> + struct net_device *dev = reply_base->dev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = ethnl_ops_begin(dev);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return 0;
humpf, return ret;?
> + ret = pse_get_pse_attributs(dev, info->extack, data);
> +
> + ethnl_ops_complete(dev);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int pse_reply_size(const struct ethnl_req_info *req_base,
> + const struct ethnl_reply_data *reply_base)
> +{
> + const struct pse_reply_data *data = PSE_REPDATA(reply_base);
> + const struct pse_control_status *st = &data->status;
> + int len = 0;
> +
> + if (st->podl_admin_state >= 0)
UNKNOWN is now 1, should be > 0 ?
> + len += nla_total_size(sizeof(u32)); /* _PODL_PSE_ADMIN_STATE */
> + if (st->podl_pw_status >= 0)
> + len += nla_total_size(sizeof(u32)); /* _PODL_PSE_PW_D_STATUS */
> +
> + return len;
> +}
> + if (!phydev)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> + if (!phydev->psec)
> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
Would be good to slap an extack msg on the two errors here.
> + else
> + ret = pse_ethtool_set_config(phydev->psec, extack, &config);
And avoid indenting the success path. So the !phydev->psec should
contain a return.
> + return ret;
> +}
