[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0462f31646e5ff0cc8ad2f6dc0529ecc2ba71f02.camel@codeconstruct.com.au>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:48:40 +0800
From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...econstruct.com.au>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, oe-kbuild@...ts.linux.dev,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: lkp@...el.com, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, Matt Johnston
<matt@...econstruct.com.au>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub
Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman
<horms@...nel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Alexander Lobakin
<aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, Liang Chen <liangchen.linux@...il.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/11] net: mctp: provide a more specific tag
allocation ioctl
Hi Dan,
> 28828bad95a357 Jeremy Kerr 2024-02-16 @389 if (!(ctl->local_addr != MCTP_ADDR_ANY ||
> 28828bad95a357 Jeremy Kerr 2024-02-16 390 ctl->local_addr != MCTP_ADDR_NULL))
> 28828bad95a357 Jeremy Kerr 2024-02-16 391 return -EINVAL;
>
> Should be &&. This function will always return -EINVAL. I haven't
> looked at the context outside of this automatically generated email
> but it suggests a failure in our test process.
Nice catch, thanks.
The issue means it would *never* detect that (not ANY, not NULL) case,
rather than always returning -EINVAL; so my ioctl test passed, but we
wouldn't have caught the forwards-compatibility check.
Given the potential for confusion here, I'll go with the simpler:
if (ctl->local_addr != MCTP_ADDR_ANY &&
ctl->local_addr != MCTP_ADDR_NULL)
return -EINVAL;
Jakub: I will send a series v2 soon, including those kunit all-tests
changes.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists