ef4_filter_remove_id_safe(9)

πŸ“¦ version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

πŸ’… ef4_filter_remove_id_safe β€” kernel API manual, section 9 πŸŽ€

okay so bestie, welcome to the ef4_filter_remove_id_safe(9) page β€” yes it's a section 9 kernel API manual, yes it's a whole vibe, and yes I'm gonna walk you through it like we're texting at 2am πŸ’–


✨ NAME ✨

ef4_filter_remove_id_safe β€” remove a filter by ID, carefully 🫢

like, carefully. the careful is the whole point. the careful is the main character.


πŸ¦‹ SYNOPSIS πŸ¦‹

int ef4_filter_remove_id_safe (struct ef4_nic *efx , enum
ef4_filter_priority priority , u32 filter_id );

return type is int, she gives you an answer, she's communicative, we love that for her πŸ’…


🌸 ARGUMENTS 🌸

  • efx β€” the NIC you're removing the filter from. it's a struct ef4_nic *. this is your girl. this is who you're operating on πŸŽ€
  • priority β€” the priority of the filter, an enum ef4_filter_priority, and it's literally the same one you passed to ef4_filter_insert_filter. match it up, don't be out here guessing ✨
  • filter_id β€” the ID of the filter, a u32, exactly as it was returned by ef4_filter_insert_filter. you gotta get her back from the insert, that's the whole system 🧚

πŸ”₯ DESCRIPTION πŸ”₯

so what does she actually do? she range-checks filter_id πŸ•΅οΈβ€β™€οΈ like, she verifies it's in bounds before touching anything.

and that is why it is safe to call this function with a value passed from userland. userland! the wild west! the chaotic group chat! but she range-checks, so it's fine, no cap 😌

fr fr the "safe" in the name is not marketing, bestie β€” the range-check on filter_id is the actual safety mechanism, and that's what makes userland-passed values okay here πŸ’€

πŸ‘‘ SEE ALSO πŸ‘‘


and that's the page!! mwah πŸ’œ this lil manual lives in ./drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/falcon and it's dated October 2026 β€” so go forth, range-check, and slay, periodt ⭐🌸

πŸ“¦ where this page comes from