[PATCH net-next v2 2/6] net: dcb: add new common function for set/del of app/rewr entries

[Petr Machata]

<Daniel.Machon at microchip.com> writes:

>  > Petr Machata <petrm at nvidia.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Daniel Machon <daniel.machon at microchip.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> In preparation for DCB rewrite. Add a new function for setting and
>> >> deleting both app and rewrite entries. Moving this into a separate
>> >> function reduces duplicate code, as both type of entries requires the
>> >> same set of checks. The function will now iterate through a configurable
>> >> nested attribute (app or rewrite attr), validate each attribute and call
>> >> the appropriate set- or delete function.
>> >>
>> >> Note that this function always checks for nla_len(attr_itr) <
>> >> sizeof(struct dcb_app), which was only done in dcbnl_ieee_set and not in
>> >> dcbnl_ieee_del prior to this patch. This means, that any userspace tool
>> >> that used to shove in data < sizeof(struct dcb_app) would now receive
>> >> -ERANGE.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon at microchip.com>
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Petr Machata <petrm at nvidia.com>
>> 
>> ... though, now that I found some issues in 3/6, if you would somehow
>> reformat the ?: expression that's now awkwardly split to two unaligned
>> lines, that would placate my OCD:
>> 
>> +               err = dcbnl_app_table_setdel(ieee[DCB_ATTR_IEEE_APP_TABLE],
>> +                                            netdev, ops->ieee_setapp ?:
>> +                                            dcb_ieee_setapp);
>
> Putting the expression on the same line will violate the 80 char limit.
> Does splitting it like that hurt anything - other than your OCD :-P At
> least checkpatch didn't complain.

Yeah, don't worry about it.