On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 15:46 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:53:38PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >
> > I have a very strong opinion about it.
>
> Then Doug should add the policies, here are the output values from the
> userspace:
>
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_CHARDEV] = { .type = NLA_U64 },
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_CHARDEV_ABI] = { .type = NLA_U64 },
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_DEV_INDEX] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_DEV_NODE_TYPE] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_NODE_GUID] = { .type = NLA_U64 },
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_UVERBS_DRIVER_ID] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_CHARDEV_NAME] = { .type = NLA_NUL_STRING },
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_DEV_NAME] = { .type = NLA_NUL_STRING },
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_DEV_PROTOCOL] = { .type = NLA_NUL_STRING },
> [RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_FW_VERSION] = { .type = NLA_NUL_STRING },
Most of those were already in the policies. Only the four that you
added to enum rdma_nldev_attr needed added to the policies, and two of
them your patch already added. The only question I had is what the
string length should be on ATTR_CHARDEV_NAME? I throw in the default of
.len = RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_ENTRY_STRLEN, but I wasn't sure if that was right
for this entry?
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
