Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:53:26 +0100 | From | Jiri Benc <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net 1/1 v4] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier |
| |
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 <jbenc@redhat.com>
Thanks,
Jiri
| |