On Sat, 2006-25-03 at 21:06 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 07:52:13AM -0500, jamal wrote:
I didnt pay attention to failure paths etc; i suppose your testing
should catch those. Getting there, a couple more comments:
> +enum {
> + TASKSTATS_CMD_UNSPEC = 0, /* Reserved */
> + TASKSTATS_CMD_GET, /* user->kernel request */
> + TASKSTATS_CMD_NEW, /* kernel->user event */
Should the comment read "kernel->user event/get-response"
> +
> +static int taskstats_send_stats(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
> +{
> +
> + if (info->attrs[TASKSTATS_CMD_ATTR_PID]) {
> + u32 pid = nla_get_u32(info->attrs[TASKSTATS_CMD_ATTR_PID]);
> + rc = fill_pid((pid_t)pid, NULL, &stats);
> + if (rc < 0)
> + goto err;
> +
> + na = nla_nest_start(rep_skb, TASKSTATS_TYPE_AGGR_PID);
> + NLA_PUT_U32(rep_skb, TASKSTATS_TYPE_PID, pid);
> + } else if (info->attrs[TASKSTATS_CMD_ATTR_TGID]) {
in regards to the elseif above:
Could you not have both PID and TGID passed? From my earlier
understanding it seemed legit, no? if answer is yes, then you will have
to do your sizes + reply TLVs at the end.
Also in regards to the nesting, isnt there a need for nla_nest_cancel in
case of failures to add TLVs?
cheers,
jamal
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
