On 17-07-25 07:33 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:22:44PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
fb? bf? nbf? Please make this synced within the patchset.
Ok, what do you like best? ;->
"bf"
Ok.
Don't you need to mask value with selector? In fact, I think that
nla_get_bitfield_32 could just return u32 which would be (value&selector).
The validation takes care of unsupported bits.
For my use case I dont need any of the above since I dont need to
unset things. In other use cases you will need both selector and
value in case someone wants a bit to be set to 0.
Infact I think i will rename that helper to "nla_get_bitvalue_32"
to be more precise.
The getter should contain name of the type, so "nla_get_bitfield32_val"
is much better.
Actually I mispoke. I was returning the struct not the value. So
nla_get_bitfield32() is a better name.
What if I pass val 0x1 and selector 0x0 from userspace. I don't have the
bit selected, so you should not process it in kernel, no?
Yes, valid point. I am not sure - should we reject?
cheers,
jamal
