Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] flow_offload: add flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags()

[Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen]

Hi Louis,

On 4/9/24 8:40 AM, Louis Peens wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:09:19PM +0000, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> > [Some people who received this message don't often get email from ast@xxxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > This helper can be used by drivers to check for the
> > presence of unsupported control flags.
> >
> > It mirrors the existing check done in sfc:
> >    drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c +276
> >
> > This is aimed at drivers, which implements some control flags.
> >
> > This should also be used by drivers that implement all
> > current flags, so that future flags will be unsupported
> > by default.
> >
> > Only compile-tested.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   include/net/flow_offload.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/flow_offload.h b/include/net/flow_offload.h
> > index 314087a5e1818..c1317b14da08c 100644
> > --- a/include/net/flow_offload.h
> > +++ b/include/net/flow_offload.h
> > @@ -449,6 +449,28 @@ static inline bool flow_rule_match_key(const struct flow_rule *rule,
> >          return dissector_uses_key(rule->match.dissector, key);
> >   }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags() - check for unsupported control flags
> > + * @supp_flags: flags supported by driver
> > + * @flags: flags present in rule
> > + * @extack: The netlink extended ACK for reporting errors.
> > + *
> > + * Returns true if only supported control flags are set, false otherwise.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags(const u32 supp_flags,
> > +                                                    const u32 flags,
> > +                                                    struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> Thanks for the change Asbjørn, I like the series in general. I do have
> some nitpicking with the naming of this function, the double negative
> makes it a bit hard to read. Especially where it gets used, where it
> then reads as:
>      'if not no unsupported'
>
> I think something like:
>      'if not supported'
> or
>      'if unsupported'
>
> will read much better - personally I think the first option is the best,
> otherwise you might end up with 'if not unsupported', which is also
> weird.
>
> Some possible suggestions I can think of:
>      flow_rule_control_flags_is_supp()
>      flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags()
>      flow_rule_check_supp_control_flags()
>
> or perhaps some even better variant of this. I hope it's not just me, if
> that's the case please feel free to ignore.
I agree, I will update the naming in v2:

flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags             => flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags
flow_rule_no_control_flags        + s/no/has/ => flow_rule_has_control_flags
flow_rule_match_no_control_flags  + s/no/has/ => flow_rule_match_has_control_flags

--
Best regards
Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
Network Engineer
Fiberby - AS42541