[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110201.145410.115936566.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:54:10 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: julia@...u.dk
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paul.moore@...com, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] include/net/genetlink.h: Allow genlmsg_cancel to
accept a NULL argument
From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:43:40 +0100 (CET)
> nlmsg_cancel can accept NULL as its second argument, so for similarity,
> this patch extends genlmsg_cancel to be able to accept a NULL second
> argument as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
I did a scan of all of the cases where this interface is used, and
I cannot find a situation where this capability would even be useful.
The use pattern is always:
hdr = genlmsg_put(skb, ...);
if (!hdr)
goto out;
NLA_PUT_*();
NLA_PUT_*();
....
return genlmsg_end(skb, hdr);
nla_put_failure:
genlmsg_cancel(skb, hdr);
out:
return -EWHATEVER;
Always, hdr will be non-NULL.
We have to allocate the header first, then put the netlink
attributes.
Looking over users of nlmsg_cancel(), the situation seems to
match identically.
Therefore, it seems to me that it makes more sense to remove
the NULL check from nlmsg_cancel() than to add the NULL check
to genlmsg_cancel().
Thanks.
--
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