On 11.06.2022 16:17:13, Max Staudt wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:36:08 +0200
> Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > What about this change?
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/dev/netlink.c
> > b/drivers/net/can/dev/netlink.c index 7633d98e3912..667ddd28fcdc
> > 100644 --- a/drivers/net/can/dev/netlink.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/can/dev/netlink.c
> > @@ -176,7 +176,8 @@ static int can_changelink(struct net_device *dev,
> > struct nlattr *tb[],
> >                  * directly via do_set_bitrate(). Bail out if neither
> >                  * is given.
> >                  */
> > -               if (!priv->bittiming_const && !priv->do_set_bittiming)
> > +               if (!priv->bittiming_const && !priv->do_set_bittiming
> > &&
> > +                   !priv->bitrate_const)
> >                         return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >  
> >                 memcpy(&bt, nla_data(data[IFLA_CAN_BITTIMING]),
> > sizeof(bt));
> > 
> > If it works I'll make a patch and apply it to net-next/master so that
> > you can base your series on this.
> 
> Yes, it seems to work fine, since the dummy function is empty, and it's
> only ever used in this same function, and the pointer is guarded as
> Vincent mentioned. So if a no-op do_set_bittiming() is okay, then not
> having it at all is also okay.

Having a no-op do_set_bittiming() just to make can_changelink() happy is
not intended. :D

> Yes, I'd appreciate you patching this, and I'll rebase upon it :)

regards,
Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                 | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Embedded Linux                   | https://www.pengutronix.de  |
Vertretung West/Dortmund         | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |