From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v12 1/4] net netlink: Add new type NLA_BITFIELD32 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:21:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20170731122106.GD1883@nanopsycho> References: <1501435492-28301-1-git-send-email-jhs@emojatatu.com> <1501435492-28301-2-git-send-email-jhs@emojatatu.com> <20170730184242.GA1872@nanopsycho> <98edc93f-b5d9-e73f-ff00-9403e8362f80@mojatatu.com> <20170731063833.GB1883@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, horms@verge.net.au, dsahern@gmail.com To: Jamal Hadi Salim Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:33405 "EHLO mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751199AbdGaMVI (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:21:08 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f194.google.com with SMTP id y43so31357511wrd.0 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2017 05:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 02:03:55PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 17-07-31 02:38 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 09:59:10PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote: >> > Jiri, >> > >> > This is getting exhausting, seriously. >> > I posted the code you are commenting one two days ago so i dont have to >> > repost. >> >> And I commented on the "*u32 = *u32" thing. But you ignored it. Pardon >> me for mentioning that again now :/ >> > >You commented on *u32 assignment from *void which i fixed. I >intentionally selected the different assignment names to reflect >meaning. Had you commented earlier - although I would have found Yep, I don't understand why the function arg cannot have the desired name right away. Also, I don't understand why you don't just have u32 instead of pointer as a local variable, if you really needed this local variable. Ok, I admit that ":)" is probably not intuitive comment. Will be more blunt next time. >it disagreable - I would have fixed that too. Jiri, you need to be >more tolerant so progress can be made at times. I don't think so. I believe that it is really important that code can be read nicely. If we don't do it, it will be just mess (like it is in lot of net/sched/ places). > >> >> > >> > On D. Ahern: I dont think we are disagreeing anymore on the need to >> > generalize the check. He is saying it should be a helper and I already >> > had the validation data; either works. I dont see the gapping need >> > to remove the validation data. >> >> DavidA? Your opinion. >> > >With DavidA(reading his response) - the issue is one of taste. >Again either approach is fine. You can call helpers for every user >or make them invoked behind the scenes. >Again - like all your comments on code taste which I addressed, I >would have made that change if the comment had come in earlier. I got >exhausted. Imagine how a newbie corporate guy wouldve felt after this. That's how it is.