Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Samir Bellabes wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * snet_nl_register - Handle a REGISTER message
>> + * @skb: the NETLINK buffer
>> + * @info: the Generic NETLINK info block
>> + *
>> + * Description:
>> + * Notify the kernel that an application is listening for events.
>> + * Returns zero on success, negative values on failure.
>> + */
>> +static int snet_nl_register(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
>> +{
>> + int ret = -EINVAL;
>> + u32 version = 0;
>> + u8 set_resp_flag = 0;
>> +
>> + atomic_set(&snet_nl_seq, info->snd_seq);
>> +
>> + if (!info->attrs[SNET_A_VERSION])
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + version = nla_get_u32(info->attrs[SNET_A_VERSION]);
>> +
>> + if (version == SNET_VERSION) { /* version is compliant */
>> + atomic_inc(&snet_num_listeners);
>> + set_resp_flag = 1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = snet_nl_response_flag(info, &snet_genl_family,
>> + SNET_C_REGISTER, SNET_A_REGISTERED,
>> + set_resp_flag);
>
> Is this really needed? A return value of 0 should already tell userspace
> that the command was successful. If it really wants a seperate success
> message, it can use NLM_F_ACK. This will also automatically take care
> of using the proper sequence number, so the snet_nl_seq handling isn't
> required anymore. Same for all similar cases below.
Indeed, we can use the return value to inform the userspace about the
status of operations. I moved all the code, and deleted the no longer
used function snet_nl_response_flag()
Thanks Patrick,
sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
