[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <72203b31-37f5-0dd1-e7b2-f5da0d0b1398@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 09:53:10 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next v2 2/5] devlink: introduce flash update overwrite mask
On 8/3/2020 8:38 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 02:21:56AM CEST, jacob.e.keller@...el.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> + nla_mask = info->attrs[DEVLINK_ATTR_FLASH_UPDATE_OVERWRITE_MASK];
>> + if (nla_mask) {
>> + if (!(supported_params & DEVLINK_SUPPORT_FLASH_UPDATE_OVERWRITE_MASK)) {
>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(info->extack, nla_mask,
>> + "overwrite is not supported");
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + }
>> + params.overwrite_mask = nla_get_u32(nla_mask);
>
> It's a bitfield, should be NL_ATTR_TYPE_BITFIELD32.
>
I disagree. BITFIELD32 has both a mask and a field. This doesn't have
the notion of a mask. The bits you allow are set, the bits you don't
allow are not set. Having both a mask and a field over complicates this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists