On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:14:10AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Anyway - we got into this discussion because of all the extra recursion
> stuff I was adding. With the change suggested by David we don't need
> that now at all, so I guess it'd be better to propose a patch if you (or
> perhaps I will
On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 18:10 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > FWIW, if you do think that there's a need for distinguishing this, then
> > I'd argue that perhaps the right way to address this would be to extend
> > this all the way to userspace and have two separate attributes for
> > error
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 09:19:31PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 15:46 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>
> > > NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "warning: deprecated command");
> > > err = nla_parse(..., extack);
> > > if (err)
> > > return err;
> > > /* do somet
On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 15:46 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "warning: deprecated command");
> > err = nla_parse(..., extack);
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > /* do something */
> > return 0;
> >
> > Here you could consider the mess
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:25:17AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 00:37 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>
> > Did you consider indicating the message level, and only overwrite the
> > message that is already in there if the new message level is higher
> > than the curren
On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 11:28 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > It might be possible to do this differently, in theory, but all the ways
> > I've tried to come up with so far made the code vastly more complex.
>
> Wouldn't still make sense to store the flag in the struct
> netlink_ext_ack, though?
Does
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:25:17 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Now, with this patch, all I'm doing is changing the internal behaviour
> of nla_parse/nla_validate - externally, it still overwrites any existing
> message if an error occurs, but internally it keeps the inner-most
> error.
Ah, okay, that
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:15:25 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> For one, having the NL_SET_* macros check it on their own will already
> not work - as we discussed over in the NLA_REJECT thread, we do need to
> be able to override the data, e.g. if somebody does
>
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "warning: dep
On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 00:37 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> Did you consider indicating the message level, and only overwrite the
> message that is already in there if the new message level is higher
> than the current one?
Hmm, no, I guess I didn't - I'm not even sure I understand what y
On Wed, 2018-09-19 at 11:10 +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:12:11 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > static int validate_nla(const struct nlattr *nla, int maxtype,
> > const struct nla_policy *policy,
> > - const char **error_msg)
> > +
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:12:11 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> static int validate_nla(const struct nlattr *nla, int maxtype,
> const struct nla_policy *policy,
> - const char **error_msg)
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack, bool *extack_se
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 03:12:11PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg
>
> In one of my previous patches in this area I introduced code
> to pass out just the error message to store in the extack, for
> use in NLA_REJECT.
>
> Change this code now to set both the error message and t
From: Johannes Berg
In one of my previous patches in this area I introduced code
to pass out just the error message to store in the extack, for
use in NLA_REJECT.
Change this code now to set both the error message and the bad
attribute pointer, and carry around a boolean indicating that
the valu
13 matches
Mail list logo
