lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] can: Use common error handling code in vxcan_newlink()
From
Date

On 10/28/2017 10:23 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> @@ -227,10 +227,8 @@ static int vxcan_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev,
>>>       netif_carrier_off(peer);
>>>         err = rtnl_configure_link(peer, ifmp);
>>> -    if (err < 0) {
>>> -        unregister_netdevice(peer);
>>> -        return err;
>>> -    }
>>> +    if (err)
>>> +        goto unregister_network_device;
>>
>> You are changing semantic in the if-statement here.
>
> I got an other software development opinion for this implementation detail.
>
> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.14-rc6/source/net/core/rtnetlink.c#L2393
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/net/core/rtnetlink.c?id=36ef71cae353f88fd6e095e2aaa3e5953af1685d#n2513
>
> The success predicate for the function “rtnl_configure_link” is that
> the return value is zero. I would prefer to treat other values as
> an error code then.

Me not.

In rtnl_configure_link() the check is

if (err < 0)
return err;

And other calling sites as in linux/drivers/net/veth.c are checking for

(err < 0)

too.

All checks done at the calling sites should be consistent.

So if you would like to change the if-statement:

1. Send a patch for vxcan.c to improve the error handling flow
2. Send a separate patch for all rtnl_configure_link() callers to unify
the result check

Step 2 is optional ... and prepare yourself for more feedback ;-)

Regards,
Oliver

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-28 20:22    [W:0.068 / U:10.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site