> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 5:01 PM
> To: Machnikowski, Maciej <maciej.machnikowski@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/6] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETEECSTATE
> message to get SyncE status
>
> Hello Maciej,
>
> 2021-11-10, 12:44:44 +0100, Maciej Machnikowski wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
> > index 5888492a5257..1d8662afd6bd 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h
> > @@ -185,6 +185,9 @@ enum {
> > RTM_GETNEXTHOPBUCKET,
> > #define RTM_GETNEXTHOPBUCKET RTM_GETNEXTHOPBUCKET
> >
> > + RTM_GETEECSTATE = 124,
> > +#define RTM_GETEECSTATE RTM_GETEECSTATE
>
> I'm not sure about this. All the other RTM_GETxxx are such that
> RTM_GETxxx % 4 == 2. Following the current pattern, 124 should be
> reserved for RTM_NEWxxx, and RTM_GETEECSTATE would be 126.
>
> Also, why are you leaving a gap (which you end up filling in patch
> 4/6)?
Hmmm I missed that - is there any guide how to number them?
I'd be happy to follow the pattern there - will fix in next revision.
The gap is there as this was developed first - but most likely this part
Will be removed in next revision in favor of DPLL subsystem.
> > +
> > __RTM_MAX,
> > #define RTM_MAX (((__RTM_MAX + 3) & ~3) - 1)
> > };
> > diff --git a/net/core/rtnetlink.c b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> > index 2af8aeeadadf..03bc773d0e69 100644
> > --- a/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> > +++ b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> > @@ -5467,6 +5467,83 @@ static int rtnl_stats_dump(struct sk_buff *skb,
> struct netlink_callback *cb)
> > return skb->len;
> > }
> >
> > +static int rtnl_fill_eec_state(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
> > + u32 portid, u32 seq, struct netlink_callback *cb,
> > + int flags, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> > +{
> [...]
> > + nlh = nlmsg_put(skb, portid, seq, RTM_GETEECSTATE,
> sizeof(*state_msg),
> > + flags);
> > + if (!nlh)
> > + return -EMSGSIZE;
> > +
> > + state_msg = nlmsg_data(nlh);
> > + state_msg->ifindex = dev->ifindex;
>
> Why stuff this in a struct instead of using an attribute?
Since it's the required parameter to identify what port is in question.
> > +
> > + if (nla_put_u32(skb, IFLA_EEC_STATE, state))
> > + return -EMSGSIZE;
> > +
> > + if (!ops->ndo_get_eec_src)
> > + goto end_msg;
> > +
> > + err = ops->ndo_get_eec_src(dev, &src_idx, extack);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + if (nla_put_u32(skb, IFLA_EEC_SRC_IDX, src_idx))
> > + return -EMSGSIZE;
> > +
> > +end_msg:
> > + nlmsg_end(skb, nlh);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Sabrina
