| Message ID | 20210204085630.19452-1-zhengyongjun3@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net-next] net: Return the correct errno code | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Clearly marked for net-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | success | Link |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | warning | 4 maintainers not CCed: rdna@fb.com laniel_francis@privacyrequired.com usuraj35@gmail.com keescook@chromium.org |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| netdev/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 24 lines checked |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
| netdev/stable | success | Stable not CCed |
Zheng Yongjun wrote:
> When kzalloc failed, should return ENOMEM rather than ENOBUFS.
All these patches have the same subject and description, couldn't they
just be part of a single series with a good cover letter?
I'm not saying make them a single patch, because that is bad for
bisection, but having them as a single series means we review related
changes at one time, and can comment on them as a group.
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:14:26 -0800 Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > Zheng Yongjun wrote: > > > When kzalloc failed, should return ENOMEM rather than ENOBUFS. > > All these patches have the same subject and description, couldn't they > just be part of a single series with a good cover letter? Agreed. The patches seem to be lacking clear justification. Cover letter would be good. > I'm not saying make them a single patch, because that is bad for > bisection, but having them as a single series means we review related > changes at one time, and can comment on them as a group.
diff --git a/net/decnet/dn_dev.c b/net/decnet/dn_dev.c index 15d42353f1a3..50e375dcd5bd 100644 --- a/net/decnet/dn_dev.c +++ b/net/decnet/dn_dev.c @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ int dn_dev_ioctl(unsigned int cmd, void __user *arg) case SIOCSIFADDR: if (!ifa) { if ((ifa = dn_dev_alloc_ifa()) == NULL) { - ret = -ENOBUFS; + ret = -ENOMEM; break; } memcpy(ifa->ifa_label, dev->name, IFNAMSIZ); @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ static int dn_nl_newaddr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh, } if ((ifa = dn_dev_alloc_ifa()) == NULL) - return -ENOBUFS; + return -ENOMEM; if (tb[IFA_ADDRESS] == NULL) tb[IFA_ADDRESS] = tb[IFA_LOCAL]; @@ -1088,7 +1088,7 @@ static struct dn_dev *dn_dev_create(struct net_device *dev, int *err) if (i == DN_DEV_LIST_SIZE) return NULL; - *err = -ENOBUFS; + *err = -ENOMEM; if ((dn_db = kzalloc(sizeof(struct dn_dev), GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL) return NULL;
When kzalloc failed, should return ENOMEM rather than ENOBUFS. Signed-off-by: Zheng Yongjun <zhengyongjun3@huawei.com> --- net/decnet/dn_dev.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)