Hi,
Sorry, somehow didn't see this until now.
> > +/* Lanes, 1, 2, 4 or 8. */
> > +#define ETHTOOL_LANES_1 1
> > +#define ETHTOOL_LANES_2 2
> > +#define ETHTOOL_LANES_4 4
> > +#define ETHTOOL_LANES_8 8
>
> Not an extremely useful set of defines, not sure Michal would agree.
>
> > +#define ETHTOOL_LANES_UNKNOWN 0
> > struct link_mode_info {
> > int speed;
> > + int lanes;
>
> why signed?
>
> > u8 duplex;
> > };
> > @@ -274,16 +277,17 @@ const struct nla_policy ethnl_linkmodes_set_policy[]
> > = {
> > [ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_SPEED] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> > [ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_DUPLEX] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
> > [ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_MASTER_SLAVE_CFG] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
> > + [ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_LANES] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
>
> NLA_POLICY_VALIDATE_FN(), not sure why the types for this
> validation_type are limited.. Johannes, just an abundance of caution?
So let me see if I got this right - you're saying you'd like to use
NLA_POLICY_VALIDATE_FN() for an NLA_U32, to validate against the _LANES
being 1, 2, 4 or 8?
First of all, you _can_, no? I mean, it's limited by
#define NLA_ENSURE_NO_VALIDATION_PTR(tp) \
(__NLA_ENSURE(tp != NLA_BITFIELD32 && \
tp != NLA_REJECT && \
tp != NLA_NESTED && \
tp != NLA_NESTED_ARRAY) + tp)
and the reason is sort of encoded in that - the types listed here
already use the pointer *regardless of the validation_type*, so you
can't have a pointer to the function in the same union.
But not sure I understood :-)
johannes
