On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:36:21 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 04:20:01PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > Can't we write these 3 above branches more compact? Something like this:
> >
> > if (!!tb[IFLA_NET_NS_FD] + !!tb[IFLA_IF_NETNSID] +
> > !!tb[IFLA_NET_NS_PID] <= 1)
> > return 0;
>
> I always prefer for conditions to be separate and readable even if it
> means additional code. But if others feel that there's value in avoiding
> two additional conditions I'm happy to adapt the patch.
FWIW, I don't like the n x n conditions much. But Kirill's proposal
seems not to be much better. I was thinking about:
int cnt = 0;
if (tb[IFLA_NET_NS_FD])
cnt++;
if (tb[IFLA_NET_NS_PID])
cnt++;
if (tb[IFLA_NET_NETNSID])
cnt++;
if (cnt > 1) {
...errorr...
}
but that's not better, either. As we're unlikely to add a fourth value,
I guess I'm okay with the current approach in the patch.
> Before I added support for netns ids for additional requests Jiri made
> it so that all request that specified properties that they did not
> support returned ENOTSUPP instead of EINVAL. This just keeps things
> consistent. Users would now suddenly receive EINVAL. That's potentially
> confusing.
Yes, please, keep -EOPNOTSUPP.
> As for the case of passing multiple netns identifying properties into
> the same request EINVAL seems the perfect candidate and the error
> message seems instructive to userspace programs.
Agreed.
Acked-by: Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com>
Thanks,
Jiri
