[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1827.1660274988@famine>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 20:29:48 -0700
From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
To: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>
cc: vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: return -ENOMEM on rlb_initialize() allocation failure
Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c:861 rlb_initialize() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy.
I'll disagree; the return value is only ever tested for being
non-zero.
-J
>Link: https://bugzilla.openanolis.cn/show_bug.cgi?id=1896
>Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
>Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>
>---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>index 60cb9a0225aa..96cb4404b3c7 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_alb.c
>@@ -858,7 +858,7 @@ static int rlb_initialize(struct bonding *bond)
>
> new_hashtbl = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!new_hashtbl)
>- return -1;
>+ return -ENOMEM;
>
> spin_lock_bh(&bond->mode_lock);
>
>--
>2.20.1.7.g153144c
>
---
-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists