[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201019092143.258cb256@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:21:43 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Henrik Bjoernlund <henrik.bjoernlund@...rochip.com>
Cc: <davem@...emloft.net>, <roopa@...dia.com>, <nikolay@...dia.com>,
<jiri@...lanox.com>, <idosch@...lanox.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 07/10] bridge: cfm: Netlink SET
configuration Interface.
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:51:04 +0000 Henrik Bjoernlund wrote:
> Thank you for the review. Comments below.
>
> The 10/15/2020 10:34, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:54:15 +0000 Henrik Bjoernlund wrote:
> > > + [IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_MEP_CONFIG_MDLEVEL] = {
> > > + .type = NLA_U32, .validation_type = NLA_VALIDATE_MAX, .max = 7 },
> >
> > NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U32, 7)
>
> I will change as requested.
>
> >
> > Also why did you keep the validation in the code in patch 4?
>
> In patch 4 there is no CFM NETLINK so I desided to keep the validation in the
> code until NETLINK was added that is now doing the check.
> I this a problem?
Nothing calls those functions until patch 7, so there's no need for
that code to be added.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists