jamal wrote:

quoted

quoted

b)Other things which i have seen compilers whine about in the past of
the form:

a missing cast
-       a->priv = (void *) p;
+       a->priv = p;

No need to cast a pointer to void *, except if a->priv
was of some different type.

So as long as lvalue was void you dont cast? p is certainly not void.

Exactly.

quoted

quoted

4) Some of those messages are actually still useful and dont really
harm to leave around for a little while longer;
-       if (tb[TCA_PEDIT_PARMS - 1] == NULL) {
-               printk("BUG: tcf_pedit_init called with NULL params\n");

I realize the fixes you have to return -ENOMEN/NOENT etc are an
improvement but a little ascii puking wont harm for somebody writting
a user space app until we get better netlink error propagation
in place.

Agreed for some messages, but those should be DEBUGs. Anyway,
I didn't want to judge for every message and possible convert
it, so I deleted all printks that got replaced by error codes.

the printks are meant to help a little more (and are mostly on the slow
path); when the error propagation for netlink works well, those sorts of
ascii messages will probably be transported back to user space. On any
newer patches I suggest to just keep them.

Ok.

Heres something else:
Re: [PATCH PKT_SCHED 15/17]: Remove checks for impossible conditions in
pedit action, you say:

quoted

Remove checks for impossible conditions in pedit action.

________________________________________________________________________
[..]
-	if (p == NULL) {

quoted

-		printk("BUG: tcf_pedit_dump called with NULL params\n");
-		goto rtattr_failure;
-	}
-

You have these type changes all over. These are certainly artifacts of the 
development time, I may have have caught a bug or two via these checks at 
the time. It is highly likely those bugs are fixed in the code merged.

Yes, I checked all paths before removing them.

If they happen, however, they are a BUG and the possibility of a bug is
still there ;-> i.e the word "impossible" is too strong a description. 
Having said that:
Is it better to have an oops catch this or have something print on the
console or syslog indicating a bug? This is more a philosphical question
and an answer could be "good practise is to let oops catch it". I am
actually indifferent if those checks go - however if i had caught them
myself i would have put unlikely() around them.

I prefer an Oops because it gives a backtrace, without requiring
additional checks in the code. The other reason I deleted them was
that not all of them printed something on the console, so some
bugs were just quietly ignored. And I didn't want to add more printks :)

I will wait for you to finish before i start working on the eactions.

So a general comment to all the patches. All look good - I would prefer
a check against size instead of EOPNOTSUPP for the two i pointed at.
And going forward, prefer you leave the printks i had for errors but fix
the return codes to be more meaningful. So only those two i pointed at
with EOPNOTSUPP i am not ACKing (my basic tests will break) - rest Dave
can push in.

Thanks. Dave is on holidays until next week, I'll fix them
up until then.

Regards
Patrick