[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: can: Use common error handling code in vxcan_newlink()
On 10/28/2017 08:33 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> So if you would like to change the if-statement:
> It will need a small adjustment for the shown transformation.
> I was also unsure if the proposal will work in a single update step.
>> 1. Send a patch for vxcan.c to improve the error handling flow
> I am going to send a second approach for this update variant.


>> 2. Send a separate patch for all rtnl_configure_link() callers to unify the result check
>> Step 2 is optional ... and prepare yourself for more feedback ;-)
> I am curious on how software development aspects will evolve around
> desired error predicates.
> Which scope did you have in mind?

Oh, I don't have any scope in mind.

I just wanted to make clear that I don't want to have a different kind
of result handling in vxcan.c and veth.c

So if you suggest to simplify the error flow that would be ok for me.

If you want to change the semantic of the result check - this has to
done consistently at all rtnl_configure_link() caller sites. And not
only in vxcan.c

That's what I have in mind.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-28 21:05    [W:0.106 / U:2.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site