Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] net: dcb: add new common function for set/del of app/rewr entries | Date | Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:56:07 +0000 |
| |
> Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com> writes: > > > Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@microchip.com> writes: > > > >> In preparation for DCB rewrite. Add a new function for setting and > >> deleting both app and rewrite entries. Moving this into a separate > >> function reduces duplicate code, as both type of entries requires the > >> same set of checks. The function will now iterate through a configurable > >> nested attribute (app or rewrite attr), validate each attribute and call > >> the appropriate set- or delete function. > >> > >> Note that this function always checks for nla_len(attr_itr) < > >> sizeof(struct dcb_app), which was only done in dcbnl_ieee_set and not in > >> dcbnl_ieee_del prior to this patch. This means, that any userspace tool > >> that used to shove in data < sizeof(struct dcb_app) would now receive > >> -ERANGE. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@microchip.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com> > > ... though, now that I found some issues in 3/6, if you would somehow > reformat the ?: expression that's now awkwardly split to two unaligned > lines, that would placate my OCD: > > + err = dcbnl_app_table_setdel(ieee[DCB_ATTR_IEEE_APP_TABLE], > + netdev, ops->ieee_setapp ?: > + dcb_ieee_setapp);
Putting the expression on the same line will violate the 80 char limit. Does splitting it like that hurt anything - other than your OCD :-P At least checkpatch didn't complain.
/Daniel
> > (and the one other).
| |