On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:46:40PM +0000, Ruhl, Michael J wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma- > >owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leon Romanovsky > >Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 9:37 AM > >To: Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jason Gunthorpe > ><jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; RDMA mailing list <linux- > >rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Matan Barak <matanb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Yishai > >Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Subject: [PATCH rdma-next 05/21] IB/uverbs: Add validations in attr_get and > >copy_{to,from} functions > > > >From: Matan Barak <matanb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >Add validations to make sure the kernel developers used the correct > >functions. We'll WARN_ON if [s]he doesn't. > > > >Signed-off-by: Matan Barak <matanb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >--- > > drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_ioctl.c | 1 + > > include/rdma/uverbs_ioctl.h | 66 > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+) > > ... > > } > > > >+#define uverbs_validate_spec_debug(_method, _idx, _name, _cond) ({\ > > Since it appears that these macros will be used all the time, is calling them _debug > appropriate? > ... > >+#define uverbs_validate_actual_spec_debug(_method, _idx, _name, > >_cond) ({\ > > So we have validate_spec(), and validate_actual_spec(). And debug macros > of each. I assume that they are doing two different things. Are they? > > Maybe comes comments or a different naming convention would be better? In offline discussion, Jason raised the interest to rewrite those Matan's patches. BTW, sorry for my slow response, my computer was broken. Thanks > > Mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
