Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/6] gtp: unify genl_find_pdp and prepare for per socket lookup

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 03:27:17PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- On Feb 2, 2017, at 3:19 PM, pablo pablo@netfilter.org wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:37:10PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote:
> >> This unifies duplicate code into a helper. It also prepares the
> >> groundwork to add a lookup version that uses the socket to find
> >> attache pdp contexts.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Schultz <aschultz@tpip.net>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/net/gtp.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
> >>  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/gtp.c b/drivers/net/gtp.c
> >> index c96c71f..6b7a3c2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/gtp.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/gtp.c
> > [...]
> >> +static struct pdp_ctx *gtp_genl_find_pdp(struct sk_buff *skb,
> >> +					 struct genl_info *info)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct pdp_ctx *pctx;
> >> +
> >> +	if (info->attrs[GTPA_LINK])
> >> +		pctx = gtp_genl_find_pdp_by_link(skb, info);
> >> +	else
> >> +		pctx = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >> +	if (!pctx)
> >> +		pctx = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> >> +
> >> +	return pctx;
> >> +}
> > 
> > For gtp_genl_find_pdp(),  I think this is easier to read:
> > 
> >        if (!info->attrs[GTPA_LINK])
> >                return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > 
> >        pctx = gtp_genl_find_pdp_by_link(skb, info);
> >	if (!pctx)
> >		return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> > 
> >         return pctx;
> 
> Yes, but a later patch (will be submitted after this series is
> accepted) will change that to:
> 
>         if (info->attrs[GTPA_LINK])
>                 pctx = gtp_genl_find_pdp_by_link(skb, info);
>         else if (info->attrs[GTPA_FD])
>                 pctx = gtp_genl_find_pdp_by_socket(skb, info);
>         else
>                 pctx = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> 
>         if (!pctx)
>                 pctx = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> 
>         return pctx;
> 
> I can use your form for this change, but have a larger change
> later. Which way do you prefer it?

I see, then leave this as it is.