Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
References: <20221110094623.3395670-1-daniel.machon@microchip.com>
 <87eduaoj8g.fsf@nvidia.com> <Y23x/PSlybLqaQIS@DEN-LT-70577>
User-agent: mu4e 1.6.6; emacs 28.1
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com>
To:     <Daniel.Machon@microchip.com>
CC:     <petrm@nvidia.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <davem@davemloft.net>, <edumazet@google.com>, <kuba@kernel.org>,
        <pabeni@redhat.com>, <joe@perches.com>, <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
        <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dcb: move getapptrust to separate function
Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2022 12:24:49 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Y23x/PSlybLqaQIS@DEN-LT-70577>
Message-ID: <8735apohn3.fsf@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2022 11:28:04.5732
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 72ea3e6f-b1a4-47fe-aecc-08dac3d7cccd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT107.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN7PR12MB8027
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE
        autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


<Daniel.Machon@microchip.com> writes:

> Den Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 05:30:43PM +0100 skrev Petr Machata:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>> 
>> Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@microchip.com> writes:
>> 
>> > diff --git a/net/dcb/dcbnl.c b/net/dcb/dcbnl.c
>> > index cec0632f96db..3f4d88c1ec78 100644
>> > --- a/net/dcb/dcbnl.c
>> > +++ b/net/dcb/dcbnl.c
>> > @@ -1060,11 +1060,52 @@ static int dcbnl_build_peer_app(struct net_device *netdev, struct sk_buff* skb,
>> >       return err;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > +static int dcbnl_getapptrust(struct net_device *netdev, struct sk_buff *skb)
>> > +{
>> > +     const struct dcbnl_rtnl_ops *ops = netdev->dcbnl_ops;
>> > +     int nselectors, err;
>> > +     u8 *selectors;
>> > +
>> > +     selectors = kzalloc(IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_MAX + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
>> > +     if (!selectors)
>> > +             return -ENOMEM;
>> > +
>> > +     err = ops->dcbnl_getapptrust(netdev, selectors, &nselectors);
>> > +
>> > +     if (!err) {
>> > +             struct nlattr *apptrust;
>> > +             int i;
>> 
>> (Maybe consider moving these up to the function scope. This scope
>> business made sense in the generic function, IMHO is not as useful with
>> a focused function like this one.)
>
> I dont mind doing that, however, this 'scope business' is just staying true
> to the rest of the dcbnl code :-) - that said, I think I agree with your
> point.
>
>> 
>> > +
>> > +             err = -EMSGSIZE;
>> > +
>> > +             apptrust = nla_nest_start(skb, DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST_TABLE);
>> > +             if (!apptrust)
>> > +                     goto nla_put_failure;
>> > +
>> > +             for (i = 0; i < nselectors; i++) {
>> > +                     enum ieee_attrs_app type =
>> > +                             dcbnl_app_attr_type_get(selectors[i]);
>> 
>> Doesn't checkpatch warn about this? There should be a blank line after
>> the variable declaration block. (Even if there wasn't one there in the
>> original code either.)
>
> Nope, no warning. And I think it has something to do with the way the line
> is split.

OK. I find the code readable just fine, so I'm fine with it as it
stands:

Reviewed-by: Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com>