[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110314223645.GL25442@fieldses.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:36:45 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: roel <roel.kluin@...il.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: svc_register error overwritten in next
iteration
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:27:35PM +0100, roel wrote:
> The break is in the inner loop, the svc_register() error is overwritten
> in the next iteration. Only the error in the last iteration is returned.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> Is this needed?
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc.c b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> index 08e05a8..5fd08c0 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
> @@ -889,6 +889,8 @@ int svc_register(const struct svc_serv *serv, const int family,
> if (error < 0)
> break;
May as well just "goto out" or "return error" here?
But: aren't we missing some cleanup? If we succesfully register one
program then fail at a second one, don't we need to unregister the
first?
--b.
> }
> + if (error < 0)
> + break;
> }
>
> return error;
--
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