linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 10/16] rocker: Handle SWITCHDEV_PORT_ATTR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 9 Feb 2019 19:21:47 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        "moderated list:ETHERNET BRIDGE" <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        jiri@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/16] rocker: Handle SWITCHDEV_PORT_ATTR_SET

Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 01:32:42AM CET, f.fainelli@...il.com wrote:
>Following patches will change the way we communicate getting or setting

Just "setting", no "getting".


>a port's attribute and use a blocking notifier to perform those tasks.
>
>Prepare rocker to support receiving notifier events targeting
>SWITCHDEV_PORT_ATTR_SET and simply translate that into the existing
>rocker_port_attr_set call.
>
>Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>---
> drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker_main.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker_main.c
>index ff3f14504f4f..f10e4888ecff 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker_main.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker_main.c
>@@ -2811,6 +2811,24 @@ rocker_switchdev_port_obj_event(unsigned long event, struct net_device *netdev,
> 	return notifier_from_errno(err);
> }
> 
>+static int
>+rocker_switchdev_port_attr_event(unsigned long event, struct net_device *netdev,
>+				 struct switchdev_notifier_port_attr_info
>+				 *port_attr_info)
>+{
>+	int err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>+
>+	switch (event) {
>+	case SWITCHDEV_PORT_ATTR_SET:

Do you expect some other event to be handled in
rocker_switchdev_port_attr_event()? Because you have SWITCHDEV_PORT_ATTR_SET
selected in case here and in rocker_switchdev_blocking_event.
Perhaps you can rename rocker_switchdev_port_attr_event() to
rocker_switchdev_port_attr_set_event() and avoid this switchcase.


>+		err = rocker_port_attr_set(netdev, port_attr_info->attr,
>+					   port_attr_info->trans);
>+		break;
>+	}
>+
>+	port_attr_info->handled = true;
>+	return notifier_from_errno(err);
>+}
>+
> static int rocker_switchdev_blocking_event(struct notifier_block *unused,
> 					   unsigned long event, void *ptr)
> {
>@@ -2823,6 +2841,8 @@ static int rocker_switchdev_blocking_event(struct notifier_block *unused,
> 	case SWITCHDEV_PORT_OBJ_ADD:
> 	case SWITCHDEV_PORT_OBJ_DEL:
> 		return rocker_switchdev_port_obj_event(event, dev, ptr);
>+	case SWITCHDEV_PORT_ATTR_SET:
>+		return rocker_switchdev_port_attr_event(event, dev, ptr);
> 	}
> 
> 	return NOTIFY_DONE;
>-- 
>2.17.1
>