On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 14:56 +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 08/27/2016 02:08 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
[]
> > + switch (attr->attach_type) {
> > + case BPF_ATTACH_TYPE_CGROUP_INET_INGRESS:
> > + case BPF_ATTACH_TYPE_CGROUP_INET_EGRESS: {
> > + struct cgroup *cgrp;
> > +
> > + prog = bpf_prog_get_type(attr->attach_bpf_fd,
> > + BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SOCKET_FILTER);
> > + if (IS_ERR(prog))
> > + return PTR_ERR(prog);
> > +
> > + cgrp = cgroup_get_from_fd(attr->target_fd);
> > + if (IS_ERR(cgrp)) {
> > + bpf_prog_put(prog);
> > + return PTR_ERR(cgrp);
> > + }
> > +
> > + cgroup_bpf_update(cgrp, prog, attr->attach_type);
> > + cgroup_put(cgrp);
> > +
> > + break;
> > + }
> this } formatting style is confusing. The above } looks
> like it matches 'switch () {'.
> May be move 'struct cgroup *cgrp' to the top to avoid that?
This style of case statements that declare local variables
with an open brace after the case statement
switch (bar) {
[cases...]
case foo: {
local declarations;
code...
}
[cases...]
}
is used quite frequently in the kernel.
I think it's fine as is.
