lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 1/6] flow_offload: add flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags()
From
Hi Louis,

On 4/9/24 8:40 AM, Louis Peens wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:09:19PM +0000, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
>> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from ast@fiberby.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>
>> This helper can be used by drivers to check for the
>> presence of unsupported control flags.
>>
>> It mirrors the existing check done in sfc:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c +276
>>
>> This is aimed at drivers, which implements some control flags.
>>
>> This should also be used by drivers that implement all
>> current flags, so that future flags will be unsupported
>> by default.
>>
>> Only compile-tested.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@fiberby.net>
>> ---
>> include/net/flow_offload.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/flow_offload.h b/include/net/flow_offload.h
>> index 314087a5e1818..c1317b14da08c 100644
>> --- a/include/net/flow_offload.h
>> +++ b/include/net/flow_offload.h
>> @@ -449,6 +449,28 @@ static inline bool flow_rule_match_key(const struct flow_rule *rule,
>> return dissector_uses_key(rule->match.dissector, key);
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags() - check for unsupported control flags
>> + * @supp_flags: flags supported by driver
>> + * @flags: flags present in rule
>> + * @extack: The netlink extended ACK for reporting errors.
>> + *
>> + * Returns true if only supported control flags are set, false otherwise.
>> + */
>> +static inline bool flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags(const u32 supp_flags,
>> + const u32 flags,
>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> Thanks for the change Asbjørn, I like the series in general. I do have
> some nitpicking with the naming of this function, the double negative
> makes it a bit hard to read. Especially where it gets used, where it
> then reads as:
> 'if not no unsupported'
>
> I think something like:
> 'if not supported'
> or
> 'if unsupported'
>
> will read much better - personally I think the first option is the best,
> otherwise you might end up with 'if not unsupported', which is also
> weird.
>
> Some possible suggestions I can think of:
> flow_rule_control_flags_is_supp()
> flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags()
> flow_rule_check_supp_control_flags()
>
> or perhaps some even better variant of this. I hope it's not just me, if
> that's the case please feel free to ignore.
I agree, I will update the naming in v2:

flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags => flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags
flow_rule_no_control_flags + s/no/has/ => flow_rule_has_control_flags
flow_rule_match_no_control_flags + s/no/has/ => flow_rule_match_has_control_flags

--
Best regards
Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
Network Engineer
Fiberby - AS42541

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:31    [W:0.069 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site