[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241005184235.22421-1-pvmohammedanees2003@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 00:12:33 +0530
From: Mohammed Anees <pvmohammedanees2003@...il.com>
To: andrew@...n.ch
Cc: davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com,
f.fainelli@...il.com,
kuba@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux@...linux.org.uk,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
olteanv@...il.com,
pabeni@...hat.com,
pvmohammedanees2003@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: Fix conditional handling of Wake-on-Lan configuration in dsa_user_set_wol
In the original code, we initialize ret = -EOPNOTSUPP and then call
phylink_ethtool_set_wol(). If DSA supports WOL, we call set_wol().
However, we aren’t checking if phylink_ethtool_set_wol() succeeds,
so I assumed both functions should be called, and if either fails,
we return -EOPNOTSUPP.
static int dsa_user_set_wol(struct net_device *dev, struct ethtool_wolinfo *w)
{
struct dsa_port *dp = dsa_user_to_port(dev);
struct dsa_switch *ds = dp->ds;
int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
phylink_ethtool_set_wol(dp->pl, w);
if (ds->ops->set_wol)
ret = ds->ops->set_wol(ds, dp->index, w);
return ret;
}
>From your response, it seems either of the two function can handle setting
WOL, if so shouldn't we check the return value of phylink_ethtool_set_wol()
to ensure it succeeds?
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists