From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 4:07 PM
Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 12:11:32PM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com wrote:
[...]
quoted
@@ -1179,6 +1195,10 @@ int dpll_nl_pin_set_doit(struct sk_buff *skb,
struct genl_info *info)
What about dpll_nl_pin_get_doit(), dpll_nl_pin_id_get_doit()?
I think it would be better to move the check to:
dpll_pin_pre_doit()
Yes, makes sense, will move it to dpll_pin_pre_doit().
Then won't be needed in dpll_nl_pin_get_doit() and
dpll_nl_pin_set_doit().
Plus, will add check in dpll_nl_pin_id_get_doit().
Thank you!
Arkadiusz
quoted
{
struct dpll_pin *pin = info->user_ptr[0];
+ if (!xa_empty(&pin->parent_refs) &&
+ !dpll_pin_parents_registered(pin))
+ return -ENODEV;
+
return dpll_pin_set_from_nlattr(pin, info);
}
--
2.38.1