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;