On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:15:22 +0900, Daniel T. Lee wrote: > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + NEXT_ARG(); > > > > nit: the new line should be before NEXT_ARG(), IOV NEXT_ARG() belongs > > to the code which consumed the argument > > > > I'm not sure I'm following. > Are you saying that, at here the newline shouldn't be necessary?
I mean this is better: if (!is_prefix(*argv, "bla-bla")) return -EINVAL; NEXT_ARG(); if (!is_prefix(*argv, "bla-bla")) return -EINVAL; NEXT_ARG(); Than this: if (!is_prefix(*argv, "bla-bla")) return -EINVAL; NEXT_ARG(); if (!is_prefix(*argv, "bla-bla")) return -EINVAL; NEXT_ARG(); Because the NEXT_ARG() "belongs" to the code that "consumed" the option. So instead of this: attach_type = parse_attach_type(*argv); if (attach_type == max_net_attach_type) { p_err("invalid net attach/detach type"); return -EINVAL; } NEXT_ARG(); progfd = prog_parse_fd(&argc, &argv); if (progfd < 0) return -EINVAL; This seems more logical to me: attach_type = parse_attach_type(*argv); if (attach_type == max_net_attach_type) { p_err("invalid net attach/detach type"); return -EINVAL; } NEXT_ARG(); progfd = prog_parse_fd(&argc, &argv); if (progfd < 0) return -EINVAL;