Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
+static
+struct nla_policy wimax_gnl_result_policy[WIMAX_GNL_ATTR_MAX + 1] = {
const please for all policies.
+ // This is really a signed-64 bit number that has to be
+ // casted from a u64
+ [WIMAX_GNL_RESULT_CODE] = { .type = NLA_U64 },
+};
+*/
+
+int wimax_gnl_send_rp_result(struct wimax_dev *wimax_dev,
+ struct genl_info *genl_info,
+ ssize_t code)
+{
+ int result;
+ struct device *dev = wimax_dev_to_dev(wimax_dev);
+ void *data;
+ struct sk_buff *reply_skb;
+ s64 code_s64 = code;
+
+ d_fnstart(3, dev, "(wimax_dev %p info %p code %zd)\n",
+ wimax_dev, genl_info, code);
+ result = -ENOMEM;
+ reply_skb = nlmsg_new(NLMSG_DEFAULT_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (reply_skb == NULL)
+ goto error_new;
+ data = genlmsg_put_reply(reply_skb, genl_info,
+ &wimax_dev->gnl_family,
+ 0, WIMAX_GNL_RP_RESULT);
+ if (data == NULL)
+ goto error_put_reply;
+
+ result = nla_put_u64(reply_skb, WIMAX_GNL_RESULT_CODE, (u64) code_s64);
+ if (result < 0)
+ dev_err(dev, "Error putting attribute: %d\n", result);
This is not how netlink protocols should treat errors.
It should return -ENOSPC (everywhere else also of course).
+
+ genlmsg_end(reply_skb, data);
+
+ result = genlmsg_reply(reply_skb, genl_info);
+ if (result < 0)
+ goto error_reply;
+ d_fnend(3, dev, "(wimax_dev %p info %p code %zd) = 0\n",
+ wimax_dev, genl_info, code);
+ return 0;
+
+error_reply:
+error_put_reply:
+ nlmsg_free(reply_skb);
+error_new:
+ d_fnend(3, dev, "(wimax_dev %p info %p code %zd) = %d\n",
+ wimax_dev, genl_info, code, result);
+ return result;
+}
_______________________________________________
wimax mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.linuxwimax.org/mailman/listinfo/wimax
