On 16/03/2018 00:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 04:59:20PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
diff --git a/include/rdma/uverbs_ioctl.h b/include/rdma/uverbs_ioctl.h
index 39ce30322211..cddbb7dc33c6 100644
+++ b/include/rdma/uverbs_ioctl.h
@@ -361,6 +361,8 @@ static inline bool uverbs_attr_is_valid(const struct uverbs_attr_bundle *attrs_b
idx & ~UVERBS_ID_NS_MASK);
}
+#define IS_UVERBS_COPY_ERR(_ret) ((_ret) == -EFAULT)
This should be
static inline bool IS_UVERBS_COPY_ERR(int ret)
{
return ret != 0 && ret != -ENOENT;
}
Right? Only checking EFAULT seems too frail.
Currently we only return -ENOENT or -EFAULT, but I agree
ret != 0 && ret != -ENOENT
is more robust.
Should I re-spin the series?
Jason
Matan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
