On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:50 AM Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote:
>
> 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;
Oh. I see.
I'll update NEXT_ARG line stick to the code which "consumes" the option.
Thanks for the review! :)
