On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 07:14:50PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 2/18/2019 10:22 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > +#define ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINKINFO 0x01 > > +#define ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINKMODES 0x02 > > + > > +#define ETH_SETTINGS_IM_ALL 0x03 > > You could define ETH_SETTINGS_IM_ALL as: > > #define ETH_SETTING_IM_ALL \ > (ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINKINFO | > ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINMODES) > > that would scale better IMHO, especially given that you have to keep > bumping that mask with new bits in subsequent patches.
I'm considering going even further and using something similar to what is used for NETIF_F_* constants so that the *_ALL value would be calculated automatically. But I'm not sure if it's not too fancy for a uapi header file. > > + if (tb[ETHA_SETTINGS_INFOMASK]) > > + req_info->req_mask = nla_get_u32(tb[ETHA_SETTINGS_INFOMASK]); > > + if (tb[ETHA_SETTINGS_COMPACT]) > > + req_info->compact = true; > > + if (req_info->req_mask == 0) > > + req_info->req_mask = ETH_SETTINGS_IM_ALL; > > What if userland is newer than the kernel and specifies a req_mask with > bits set that you don't support? Should not you always do an & > ETH_SETTINGS_IM_ALL here? In that case only known bits would be handled and the check at the end of prepare_info() would add a warning to extack that part of the information couldn't be provided (same as if some of the recognized parts didn't have necessary ethtool_ops handlers or if they failed). Michal
