diff mbox series

[net-next,15/15] devlink: save devlink_port_ops into a variable in devlink_port_function_validate()

Message ID 20230524121836.2070879-16-jiri@resnulli.us (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series devlink: move port ops into separate structure | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net-next
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 12 this patch: 12
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 6 of 6 maintainers
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 10 this patch: 10
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 12 this patch: 12
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 36 lines checked
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 2 this patch: 2
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0

Commit Message

Jiri Pirko May 24, 2023, 12:18 p.m. UTC 
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>

Now when the original ops variable is removed, introduce it again
but this time for devlink_port_ops.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com>
---
 net/devlink/leftover.c | 11 +++++------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Jakub Kicinski May 25, 2023, 4:55 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, 24 May 2023 14:18:36 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> +	const struct devlink_port_ops *ops = devlink_port->ops;
>  	struct nlattr *attr;
>  
>  	if (tb[DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_HW_ADDR] &&
> -	    (!devlink_port->ops || !devlink_port->ops->port_fn_hw_addr_set)) {
> +	    (!ops || !ops->port_fn_hw_addr_set)) {

I was kinda expected last patch will remove the !ops checks.
Another series comes after this to convert more drivers?
Jiri Pirko May 25, 2023, 5:58 a.m. UTC | #2 
Thu, May 25, 2023 at 06:55:35AM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
>On Wed, 24 May 2023 14:18:36 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> +	const struct devlink_port_ops *ops = devlink_port->ops;
>>  	struct nlattr *attr;
>>  
>>  	if (tb[DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_HW_ADDR] &&
>> -	    (!devlink_port->ops || !devlink_port->ops->port_fn_hw_addr_set)) {
>> +	    (!ops || !ops->port_fn_hw_addr_set)) {
>
>I was kinda expected last patch will remove the !ops checks.
>Another series comes after this to convert more drivers?

Well, there are still drivers that don't use the port at all ops. I can
have them register with empty struct if you like, no strong opinition. I
can do that as follow-up (this set has 15 patches already anyway). Let
me know.
Jakub Kicinski May 25, 2023, 3:29 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Thu, 25 May 2023 07:58:09 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >I was kinda expected last patch will remove the !ops checks.
> >Another series comes after this to convert more drivers?  
> 
> Well, there are still drivers that don't use the port at all ops. I can
> have them register with empty struct if you like, no strong opinition. I
> can do that as follow-up (this set has 15 patches already anyway). Let
> me know.

Hm. Or maybe we can hook in an empty ops struct in the core when driver
passes NULL? No strong preference.
Jiri Pirko May 26, 2023, 8:53 a.m. UTC | #4 
Thu, May 25, 2023 at 05:29:33PM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
>On Thu, 25 May 2023 07:58:09 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >I was kinda expected last patch will remove the !ops checks.
>> >Another series comes after this to convert more drivers?  
>> 
>> Well, there are still drivers that don't use the port at all ops. I can
>> have them register with empty struct if you like, no strong opinition. I
>> can do that as follow-up (this set has 15 patches already anyway). Let
>> me know.
>
>Hm. Or maybe we can hook in an empty ops struct in the core when driver
>passes NULL? No strong preference.

Okay, will check, thx!
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/devlink/leftover.c b/net/devlink/leftover.c
index b35dee4dddbc..fd2b1a40b61e 100644
--- a/net/devlink/leftover.c
+++ b/net/devlink/leftover.c
@@ -1185,16 +1185,17 @@  static int devlink_port_function_validate(struct devlink_port *devlink_port,
 					  struct nlattr **tb,
 					  struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
 {
+	const struct devlink_port_ops *ops = devlink_port->ops;
 	struct nlattr *attr;
 
 	if (tb[DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_HW_ADDR] &&
-	    (!devlink_port->ops || !devlink_port->ops->port_fn_hw_addr_set)) {
+	    (!ops || !ops->port_fn_hw_addr_set)) {
 		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb[DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_HW_ADDR],
 				    "Port doesn't support function attributes");
 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 	}
 	if (tb[DEVLINK_PORT_FN_ATTR_STATE] &&
-	    (!devlink_port->ops || !devlink_port->ops->port_fn_state_set)) {
+	    (!ops || !ops->port_fn_state_set)) {
 		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb[DEVLINK_PORT_FUNCTION_ATTR_HW_ADDR],
 				    "Function does not support state setting");
 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
@@ -1205,15 +1206,13 @@  static int devlink_port_function_validate(struct devlink_port *devlink_port,
 
 		caps = nla_get_bitfield32(attr);
 		if (caps.selector & DEVLINK_PORT_FN_CAP_ROCE &&
-		    (!devlink_port->ops ||
-		     !devlink_port->ops->port_fn_roce_set)) {
+		    (!ops || !ops->port_fn_roce_set)) {
 			NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, attr,
 					    "Port doesn't support RoCE function attribute");
 			return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 		}
 		if (caps.selector & DEVLINK_PORT_FN_CAP_MIGRATABLE) {
-			if (!devlink_port->ops ||
-			    !devlink_port->ops->port_fn_migratable_set) {
+			if (!ops || !ops->port_fn_migratable_set) {
 				NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, attr,
 						    "Port doesn't support migratable function attribute");
 				return -EOPNOTSUPP;