Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][UPDATED PATCH 2.6.16] [Patch 9/9] Generic netlink interface for delay accounting | | From | jamal <> | | Date | Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:48:21 -0500 |
| |
On Sat, 2006-25-03 at 21:06 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 07:52:13AM -0500, jamal wrote:
I didnt pay attention to failure paths etc; i suppose your testing should catch those. Getting there, a couple more comments:
> +enum { > + TASKSTATS_CMD_UNSPEC = 0, /* Reserved */ > + TASKSTATS_CMD_GET, /* user->kernel request */ > + TASKSTATS_CMD_NEW, /* kernel->user event */
Should the comment read "kernel->user event/get-response"
> + > +static int taskstats_send_stats(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info) > +{
> + > + if (info->attrs[TASKSTATS_CMD_ATTR_PID]) { > + u32 pid = nla_get_u32(info->attrs[TASKSTATS_CMD_ATTR_PID]); > + rc = fill_pid((pid_t)pid, NULL, &stats); > + if (rc < 0) > + goto err; > + > + na = nla_nest_start(rep_skb, TASKSTATS_TYPE_AGGR_PID); > + NLA_PUT_U32(rep_skb, TASKSTATS_TYPE_PID, pid); > + } else if (info->attrs[TASKSTATS_CMD_ATTR_TGID]) {
in regards to the elseif above: Could you not have both PID and TGID passed? From my earlier understanding it seemed legit, no? if answer is yes, then you will have to do your sizes + reply TLVs at the end.
Also in regards to the nesting, isnt there a need for nla_nest_cancel in case of failures to add TLVs?
cheers, jamal
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |