[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220517154419.44a1cb6a@hermes.local>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 15:44:19 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] bonding: netlink error message support for
options
On Tue, 17 May 2022 16:31:19 -0400
Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com> wrote:
> This is an RFC because the current NL_SET_ERR_MSG() macros do not support
> printf like semantics so I rolled my own buffer setting in __bond_opt_set().
> The issue is I could not quite figure out the life-cycle of the buffer, if
> rtnl lock is held until after the text buffer is copied into the packet
> then we are ok, otherwise, some other type of buffer management scheme will
> be needed as this could result in corrupted error messages when modifying
> multiple bonds.
Might be better for others in long term if NL_SET_ERR_MSG() had printf like
semantics. Surely this isn't going to be first or last case.
Then internally, it could print right to the netlink message.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists