On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:55:08AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 10:10 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 03:17:09PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > /**
> > > > * ib_set_client_data - Set IB client context
> > > > * @device:Device to set context for
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/nldev.c
> > > > b/drivers/infiniband/core/nldev.c
> > > > index 69188cbbd99bd5..55eccea628e99f 100644
> > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/nldev.c
> > > > @@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ static const struct nla_policy
> > > > nldev_policy[RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_MAX] = {
> > > > [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_DEV_PROTOCOL] = { .type =
> > > > NLA_NUL_STRING,
> > > > .len = RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_ENTRY_STRLEN
> > > > },
> > > > [RDMA_NLDEV_NET_NS_FD] = { .type =
> > > > NLA_U32 },
> > > > + [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_CHARDEV_TYPE] = { .type =
> > > > NLA_NUL_STRING,
> > > > + .len = 128 },
> > > > + [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_PORT_INDEX] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> > >
> > > It is wrong, we already have RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_PORT_INDEX declared in
> > > nla_policy.
> > > But we don't have other RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_CHARDEV_* declarations
> > > here.
> >
> > Doug can you fix it?
>
> I haven't pushed my wip to for-next yet, so yeah, I can fix it. We
> just need to decide on what the full fix is ;-)
>
> Drop the duplicate ATTR_PORT_INDEX, but what about a final decision on
> including the outputs for possible future type checking? You and Leon
> seem to be going back and forth, and I don't have strong feelings
> either way on this one. It's just a definition statement, not like
> it's a dead subroutine.
I have a very strong opinion about it.
Thanks
>
> --
> Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
> GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
> Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57
> 2FDD
