Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dcb: move getapptrust to separate function

[Petr Machata]

<Daniel.Machon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>