[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1272976042.7559.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 08:27:22 -0400
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To: Johannes Weiner <jw@...ix.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexandros Batsakis <batsakis@...app.com>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sunrpc: add missing return statement
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 13:59 +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> f300bab "nfsd41: sunrpc: add new xprt class for nfsv4.1 backchannel"
> introduced an error case branch that lacks an actual `return' keyword
> before the return value. Add it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jw@...ix.com>
> Cc: Alexandros Batsakis <batsakis@...app.com>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> @@ -2444,7 +2444,7 @@ static struct rpc_xprt *xs_setup_bc_tcp(
> struct svc_sock *bc_sock;
>
> if (!args->bc_xprt)
> - ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> xprt = xs_setup_xprt(args, xprt_tcp_slot_table_entries);
> if (IS_ERR(xprt))
No. It should either be a BUG_ON(), or else be removed entirely.
Returning an error value for something that is clearly a programming bug
is not a particularly useful exercise...
Cheers
Trond
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists