----- On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:19 PM, pablo pa...@netfilter.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:37:10PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
>> This unifies duplicate code into a helper. It also prepares the
>> groundwork to add a lookup version that uses the socket to find
>> attache pdp contexts.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Schultz <aschu...@tpip.net>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/gtp.c | 120
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/gtp.c b/drivers/net/gtp.c
>> index c96c71f..6b7a3c2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/gtp.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/gtp.c
> [...]
>> +static struct pdp_ctx *gtp_genl_find_pdp(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> + struct genl_info *info)
>> +{
>> + struct pdp_ctx *pctx;
>> +
>> + if (info->attrs[GTPA_LINK])
>> + pctx = gtp_genl_find_pdp_by_link(skb, info);
>> + else
>> + pctx = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> + if (!pctx)
>> + pctx = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>> +
>> + return pctx;
>> +}
>
> For gtp_genl_find_pdp(), I think this is easier to read:
>
> if (!info->attrs[GTPA_LINK])
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> pctx = gtp_genl_find_pdp_by_link(skb, info);
> if (!pctx)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>
> return pctx;
Yes, but a later patch (will be submitted after this series is
accepted) will change that to:
if (info->attrs[GTPA_LINK])
pctx = gtp_genl_find_pdp_by_link(skb, info);
else if (info->attrs[GTPA_FD])
pctx = gtp_genl_find_pdp_by_socket(skb, info);
else
pctx = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
if (!pctx)
pctx = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
return pctx;
I can use your form for this change, but have a larger change
later. Which way do you prefer it?
Andreas
