From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: can: Use common error handling code in vxcan_newlink()
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:04:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d612668-5423-4ce3-a4f5-ee394d7ddd21@hartkopp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5a76bb36-4ae0-eca2-ae34-69c2bfddb634@users.sourceforge.net>
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.
Ok.
>
>> 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.
Regards,
Oliver
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: can: Use common error handling code in vxcan_newlink()
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 19:04:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d612668-5423-4ce3-a4f5-ee394d7ddd21@hartkopp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5a76bb36-4ae0-eca2-ae34-69c2bfddb634@users.sourceforge.net>
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.
Ok.
>
>> 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.
Regards,
Oliver
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-28 19:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-27 20:30 [PATCH] can: Use common error handling code in vxcan_newlink() SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-27 20:30 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-28 6:48 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-10-28 6:48 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-10-28 8:23 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-28 8:23 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-28 17:40 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-10-28 17:40 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-10-28 18:33 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-28 18:33 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-28 19:04 ` Oliver Hartkopp [this message]
2017-10-28 19:04 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-10-28 19:18 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-28 19:18 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-28 19:54 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-10-28 19:54 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-10-28 20:13 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-28 20:13 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-10-29 10:51 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-10-29 10:51 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-11-01 14:16 ` [PATCH v2] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-11-01 14:16 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-11-01 19:09 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-11-01 19:09 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-11-01 19:37 ` [v2] " SF Markus Elfring
2017-11-01 19:37 ` SF Markus Elfring
2017-11-02 8:22 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-11-02 8:22 ` Oliver Hartkopp
2017-11-07 8:21 ` [PATCH v2] " Marc Kleine-Budde
2017-11-07 8:21 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4d612668-5423-4ce3-a4f5-ee394d7ddd21@hartkopp.net \
--to=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wg@grandegger.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.