[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:58:27 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, pablo@...filter.org,
kaber@...sh.net, kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, davem@...emloft.net,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr
Subject: Re: question about xt_find_table_lock
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
> > The function xt_find_table_lock defined in net/netfilter/x_tables.c is
> > preceeded by a comment that says that it returns ERR_PTR() on error. But
> > looking at the definition, I only see occurrences of return NULL and
> > returns of pointers that have previously been dereferenced. Is it the
> > code or the documentation that is incorrect? The call sites seem to be
> > using IS_ERR_OR_NULL. Is there a plan to return ERR_PTR values in the
> > future?
>
> It used to return ERR_PTR, see:
>
> commit 7926dbfa4bc14e27f4e18a6184a031a1c1e077dc
> netfilter: don't use mutex_lock_interruptible()
>
> So the comment isn't correct anymore and callers could test vs NULL.
Thanks for the quick feedback.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists