On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:09:03 +0200 Serhey Popovych <serhe.popov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Serhey Popovych wrote:
> > David Ahern wrote:
> >> On 2/26/18 11:20 AM, Serhey Popovych wrote:
> >>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:02:06 +0200
> >>>> Serhey Popovych <serhe.popov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +struct iplink_parse_args {
> >>>>> + const char *dev;
> >>>>> + const char *name;
> >>>>> + const char *type;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /* This definitely must be the last one and initialized
> >>>>> + * by the caller of iplink_parse() that will initialize rest.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + struct iplink_req *req;
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>>
> >>>> No control block please.
> >>> Accepted.
> >>>
> >>>> If you have too many arguments, then that means you need to do
> >>>> some refactoring.
> >>>
> >>> So using structure as single argument to a function isn't an option?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> As I mentioned before, iplink_parse should not be used by vxcan or veth
> >> as they only want a subset of the parsing. Once you take those users
> >> out, iplink_parse becomes local to iplink.c with a single user. In which
> >> case I suspect the compiler will always inline the function so no
> >> refactoring on the number of arguments is needed.
> >>
> > I will implement cut down function to parse vxcan and veth peer device
> > parameters and reuse it in iplink_parse() to avoid code duplications.
> >
> > But my final goal not to refactor on number of arguments to parse,
> > that's side product of this series, I want to take @name, @dev and
> > other parameters for later use. In ->parse_opt() modules @name, @dev
> > and others are not available easily. It seems only way to get them is
> > to parse supplied netlink buffer.
> >
> >
> While looking on how to make iplink_parse_light() that will be used with
> vxcan and veth I found following problems:
>
> 1) need to copy nearly all parameters parsing code (except vf, alias,
> carrier, master, protodown, link-netnsid, addrgenmode). this will
> be mitigated by re using iplink_parse_light() in iplink_parse()
>
> 2) how to add attributes like IFLA_GROUP? in caller? this will give
> even more code duplications.
>
> 3) there is high risk of adding regression either via conflicting
> matches() parameter in userspace or missing kernel attribute
> previously supported.
>
> Sorry, I do not like this approach. I do not want to broke anything,
> I just want @name and @dev parameters in ->parse_opt().
>
>
> 2)
> >
If the work to use common code is bigger than the code itself
then why bother. There is no benefit.
pgpiAIbT5fZ7H.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
