On 24 November 2018 18:10:41 EET, Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +int br_boolopt_toggle(struct net_bridge *br, enum br_boolopt_id opt,
>bool on,
>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>> +{
>> + switch (opt) {
>> + default:
>> + /* shouldn't be called with unsupported options */
>> + WARN_ON(1);
>> + break;
>
>So you return 0 here, meaning the br_debug() lower down will not
>happen. Maybe return -EOPNOTSUPP?
>
No, the idea here is that some option in the future might return an error.
This function cannot be called with unsupported option thus the warn.
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>
>> +int br_boolopt_multi_toggle(struct net_bridge *br,
>> + struct br_boolopt_multi *bm,
>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long bitmap = bm->optmask;
>> + int err = 0;
>> + int opt_id;
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(opt_id, &bitmap, BR_BOOLOPT_MAX) {
>> + bool on = !!(bm->optval & BIT(opt_id));
>> +
>> + err = br_boolopt_toggle(br, opt_id, on, extack);
>> + if (err) {
>> + br_debug(br, "boolopt multi-toggle error: option: %d current: %d
>new: %d error: %d\n",
>> + opt_id, br_boolopt_get(br, opt_id), on, err);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>
>Does the semantics of extack allow you to return something even when
>there is no error? If there are bits > BR_BOOLOPT_MAX you could return
>0, but also add a warning in extack that some bits where not supported
>by this kernel.
If we return 0 there's no reason to check extack.
>> +void br_boolopt_multi_get(const struct net_bridge *br,
>> + struct br_boolopt_multi *bm)
>> +{
>> + u32 optval = 0;
>> + int opt_id;
>> +
>> + for (opt_id = 0; opt_id < BR_BOOLOPT_MAX; opt_id++)
>> + optval |= (br_boolopt_get(br, opt_id) << opt_id);
>> +
>> + bm->optval = optval;
>> + bm->optmask = 0;
>
>You liked the idea of setting optmask to indicate which bits this
>kernel supports. Did you change your mind?
>
Please see patch 03.
> Andrew
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
