| Message ID | 1631266404-29698-1-git-send-email-yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Deferred |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [-next] UNRPC: Return specific error code on kmalloc failure | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be net-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | warning | Target tree name not specified in the subject |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | warning | 3 maintainers not CCed: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org colin.king@canonical.com martijn.de.gouw@prodrive-technologies.com |
| 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, 8 lines checked |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 05:33:24PM +0800, Yang Li wrote: > Although the callers of this function only care about whether the > return value is null or not, we should still give a rigorous > error code. Eh, I'm not sure I understand why this is important but, OK, applying.--b. > > Smatch tool warning: > net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c:784 gss_write_verf() warn: returning > -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy > > No functional change, just more standardized. > > Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com> > Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com> > --- > net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > index 3e776e3..7dba6a9 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c > @@ -781,7 +781,7 @@ static inline u32 round_up_to_quad(u32 i) > svc_putnl(rqstp->rq_res.head, RPC_AUTH_GSS); > xdr_seq = kmalloc(4, GFP_KERNEL); > if (!xdr_seq) > - return -1; > + return -ENOMEM; > *xdr_seq = htonl(seq); > > iov.iov_base = xdr_seq; > -- > 1.8.3.1
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c index 3e776e3..7dba6a9 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c @@ -781,7 +781,7 @@ static inline u32 round_up_to_quad(u32 i) svc_putnl(rqstp->rq_res.head, RPC_AUTH_GSS); xdr_seq = kmalloc(4, GFP_KERNEL); if (!xdr_seq) - return -1; + return -ENOMEM; *xdr_seq = htonl(seq); iov.iov_base = xdr_seq;
Although the callers of this function only care about whether the return value is null or not, we should still give a rigorous error code. Smatch tool warning: net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c:784 gss_write_verf() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy No functional change, just more standardized. Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com> Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com> --- net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)