On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:44:22PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:20:22AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > > > else if (someflag) > > > dosomething(); > > > > > > For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually exclusive, > > > as they will not make sense together with the potential flags I know, but > > > that can change at some time of course. > > > > Yes, I see that is workable. I do feel that checking for other flags would > > be a bit more robust. But as you say, there are none. So whichever > > approach you prefer is fine by me. > > The model we have for unsupported bits in the SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS > and SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS handlers is essentially this: > > if (flags & ~(supported_flag_mask)) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > if (flags & supported_flag_1) > ... > > if (flags & supported_flag_2) > ... > > I suppose applying this model here would address Simon's extensibility concern. Yes, that is the model I had in mind.
