Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:34:58PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 17-07-25 07:33 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:22:44PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: > >> > > fb? bf? nbf? Please make this synced within the patchset. >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Ok, what do you like best? ;-> >> >> "bf" >> > >Ok. > >> >> > >> > > Don't you need to mask value with selector? In fact, I think that >> > > nla_get_bitfield_32 could just return u32 which would be >> > > (value&selector). >> > > The validation takes care of unsupported bits. >> > >> > For my use case I dont need any of the above since I dont need to >> > unset things. In other use cases you will need both selector and >> > value in case someone wants a bit to be set to 0. >> > Infact I think i will rename that helper to "nla_get_bitvalue_32" >> > to be more precise. >> >> The getter should contain name of the type, so "nla_get_bitfield32_val" >> is much better. >> > >Actually I mispoke. I was returning the struct not the value. So >nla_get_bitfield32() is a better name.
ack > >> What if I pass val 0x1 and selector 0x0 from userspace. I don't have the >> bit selected, so you should not process it in kernel, no? >> > >Yes, valid point. I am not sure - should we reject? I think that the validation might check this and reject. Makes sense to me.
