[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180905163842.GB21028@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 10:38:42 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Ariel Levkovich <lariel@...lanox.com>,
Mark Bloch <markb@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next v1 12/15] RDMA/mlx5: Add a new flow action verb
- modify header
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:20:44AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:58:23PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 02:18:51PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >
> > > +static int UVERBS_HANDLER(MLX5_IB_METHOD_FLOW_ACTION_CREATE_MODIFY_HEADER)(
> > > + struct ib_uverbs_file *file,
> > > + struct uverbs_attr_bundle *attrs)
> > > +{
> > > + struct ib_uobject *uobj = uverbs_attr_get_uobject(
> > > + attrs, MLX5_IB_ATTR_CREATE_MODIFY_HEADER_HANDLE);
> > > + struct mlx5_ib_dev *mdev = to_mdev(uobj->context->device);
> > > + enum mlx5_ib_uapi_flow_table_type ft_type;
> > > + struct ib_flow_action *action;
> > > + size_t num_actions;
> > > + void *in;
> > > + int len;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (!mlx5_ib_modify_header_supported(mdev))
> > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +
> > > + in = uverbs_attr_get_alloced_ptr(attrs,
> > > + MLX5_IB_ATTR_CREATE_MODIFY_HEADER_ACTIONS_PRM);
> > > + len = uverbs_attr_get_len(attrs,
> > > + MLX5_IB_ATTR_CREATE_MODIFY_HEADER_ACTIONS_PRM);
> > > +
> > > + if (len % MLX5_UN_SZ_BYTES(set_action_in_add_action_in_auto))
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + ret = uverbs_get_const(&ft_type, attrs,
> > > + MLX5_IB_ATTR_CREATE_MODIFY_HEADER_FT_TYPE);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > This should be
> >
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > Every call to uverbs_get_const is wrong in this same way..
>
> Right, from technical point of view uverbs_get_const can return EINVAL
> only, and it is correct for now, but need to be changed to proper
> "return ret".
No, it can return ENOENT as well.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists