[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZjuPWwPIByGFkxHJ@hog>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 16:42:35 +0200
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Esben Haabendal <esben@...nix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 03/24] ovpn: add basic netlink support
2024-05-06, 03:16:16 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ovpn/netlink.c b/drivers/net/ovpn/netlink.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..c0a9f58e0e87
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/net/ovpn/netlink.c
> +int ovpn_nl_new_iface_doit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
> +{
> + return -ENOTSUPP;
nit: All thhese should probably be EOPNOTSUPP if those return values
can be passed back to userspace, but since you're removing all of them
as you implement the functions, it doesn't really matter.
[...]
> +/**
> + * ovpn_nl_init - perform any ovpn specific netlink initialization
> + * @ovpn: the openvpn instance object
> + */
> +int ovpn_nl_init(struct ovpn_struct *ovpn)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
Is this also part of the auto-generated code? Or maybe a leftover from
previous iterations? This function doesn't do anything even after all
other patches are applied.
--
Sabrina
Powered by blists - more mailing lists