On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:44:22PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:20:22AM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

quoted

else if (someflag)
        dosomething();

For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually exclusive,
as they will not make sense together with the potential flags I know, but
that can change at some time of course.

Yes, I see that is workable. I do feel that checking for other flags would
be a bit more robust. But as you say, there are none. So whichever
approach you prefer is fine by me.

The model we have for unsupported bits in the SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_PRE_BRIDGE_FLAGS
and SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS handlers is essentially this:

	if (flags & ~(supported_flag_mask))
		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

	if (flags & supported_flag_1)
		...

	if (flags & supported_flag_2)
		...

I suppose applying this model here would address Simon's extensibility concern.

Yes, that is the model I had in mind.