[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140326200922.GK28666@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:09:22 -0400
From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: linux-audit@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
eparis@...hat.com, sgrubb@...hat.com, hadi@...atatu.com
Subject: v6 superceded it [was: Re: [PATCH][v5] netlink: have netlink
per-protocol bind function return an error code.]
On 14/03/26, David Miller wrote:
> From: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:59:23 -0400
>
> > + if (err)
> > + if (!nlk->portid)
> > + netlink_remove(sk);
> > + for (int undo = 0; undo < i; undo++)
> > + if (nlk->netlink_unbind)
> > + nlk->netlink_unbind(undo);
> > + return err;
>
> Take a good long stare at that code block for a while.
>
> Looks like you forgot the braces to delineate the code block.
Did you notice all the attempts to send a corrected patch? v6 finally
got it right (sent Monday). Sorry for all the noise. Serve me right
for not sitting on my hands before sending the email for a bit while I
checked it.
> This also means you really haven't tested this patch :-)
It was tested, but the patched code wasn't actually checked in. It was
still in my tree. I ran "git commit --amend" more than once, forgetting
the "-a", and didn't carefully enough inspect the resulting patch.
> Please also DO NOT declare local variables in a for() statement,
> this is not c++.
It is above the for now (also in v6).
- RGB
--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@...hat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists