On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 06:18:33PM +0200, nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
O.K, i was trying to make it easier to see which option caused it to
happen.
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + 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.
Well, the caller can check to see if extack is present, even on
success. This is extack, not extnack after all...
Andrew
