[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1skd1qjzb.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:00:56 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] bond: Implement a basic set of rtnl link ops
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> writes:
>>
>>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>> +static struct rtnl_link_ops bond_link_ops __read_mostly = {
>>>> + .kind = "bond",
>>>> + .setup = bond_setup,
>>>> + .validate = bond_validate,
>>>> +};
>>> One more thing - you need to initialize .priv_size here so
>>> the devices created through rtnl_link have enough private
>>> room allocated.
>>
>> Wow and the code works when I test it without that ouch!
>>
>> As for rtnl_link_register it always succeeds so let's just
>> remove the return code and call it good.
>
> You need unroll anyways for the other failure conditions, so
> why not simply add an err1/2 and be safe for future changes?
Not a real problem. I was just thinking of things like the
dummy driver that have this same issue and the fact that since
rtnl_link_register never fails we never test the error path.
So it would be much less error prone and less code to remove
the possibility of rtnl_link_register failing.
Eric
--
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