From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 08:02:56 +0000
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] ppp: add rtnetlink device creation support
Message-Id: <5704C2B0.6020504@bfs.de>
List-Id: <linux-ppp.vger.kernel.org>
References: <cover.1459807527.git.g.nault@alphalink.fr> <dc5fd88775581dba073d0051bbfb4c2c9c5c2d23.1459807527.git.g.nault@alphalink.fr> <5703F356.6050107@bfs.de> <20160405212222.GD1305@alphalink.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20160405212222.GD1305@alphalink.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>



Am 05.04.2016 23:22, schrieb Guillaume Nault:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:18:14PM +0200, walter harms wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 05.04.2016 02:56, schrieb Guillaume Nault:
>>> @@ -1043,12 +1048,39 @@ static int ppp_dev_configure(struct net *src_net, struct net_device *dev,
>>>  			     const struct ppp_config *conf)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct ppp *ppp = netdev_priv(dev);
>>> +	struct file *file;
>>>  	int indx;
>>> +	int err;
>>> +
>>> +	if (conf->fd < 0) {
>>> +		file = conf->file;
>>> +		if (!file) {
>>> +			err = -EBADF;
>>> +			goto out;
>>
>> why not just return -EBADF;
>>
>>> +		}
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		file = fget(conf->fd);
>>> +		if (!file) {
>>> +			err = -EBADF;
>>> +			goto out;
>> 	
>> why not just return -EBADF;
>>
> Just because the 'out' label is declared anyway and because this
> centralises the return point. But I agree returning -EBADF directly
> could be more readable. I don't have strong opinion.

in this special case i would go for readable. People tend to miss these
if
 if
  if
constructs.

NTL its up to you.

re,
 wh