| Message ID | 23fbbdba-fb11-a6bc-7d6a-4af43ef79503@users.sourceforge.net |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] can: Use common error handling code in vxcan_newlink() | expand |
On 11/01/2017 03:16 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:56:15 +0100 > > Add a jump target so that a bit of exception handling can be better reused > at the end of this function. > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net> Again: Posting such a patch on linux-can@vger.kernel.org is ENOUGH! No need to cross post such a patch additionally on netdev@vger.kernel.org linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org and to each of the maintainers mkl@pengutronix.de wg@grandegger.com socketcan@hartkopp.net We all subscribed the mailing list and listen to it. That's the intention of a mailing list ... Cross posting is not appreciated in the community. Thanks, Oliver > --- > > v2: > An approach to make two checks for a failure predicate a bit safer > was rejected on 2017-10-28. > The possibility remains to reconsider such an adjustment later again. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/28/125 > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<264b3c2b-8354-5769-639c-ac8d2fcbe630@hartkopp.net> > > drivers/net/can/vxcan.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c b/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c > index 8404e8852a0f..5d1753cfacea 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c > +++ b/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c > @@ -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 < 0) > + goto unregister_network_device; > > /* register first device */ > if (tb[IFLA_IFNAME]) > @@ -239,10 +237,8 @@ static int vxcan_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev, > snprintf(dev->name, IFNAMSIZ, DRV_NAME "%%d"); > > err = register_netdevice(dev); > - if (err < 0) { > - unregister_netdevice(peer); > - return err; > - } > + if (err < 0) > + goto unregister_network_device; > > netif_carrier_off(dev); > > @@ -254,6 +250,10 @@ static int vxcan_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev, > rcu_assign_pointer(priv->peer, dev); > > return 0; > + > +unregister_network_device: > + unregister_netdevice(peer); > + return err; > } > > static void vxcan_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head) >
> Acked-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net> Thanks for another positive feedback. > Again: Posting such a patch on linux-can@vger.kernel.org is ENOUGH! I was informed in an other way for Linux software patches. > No need to cross post such a patch additionally on > > netdev@vger.kernel.org > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org These addresses were suggested (or recommended?) by the script “get_maintainer.pl”. > kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org I tend to add this address also for my update suggestions. > and to each of the maintainers … > We all subscribed the mailing list and listen to it. This is generally fine. - But I do not know how long such subscriptions will be active. > That's the intention of a mailing list ... I know … > Cross posting is not appreciated in the community. How does this view fit to the information in the section “5) Select the recipients for your patch” from the document “submitting-patches.rst”? Regards, Markus
On 11/01/2017 08:37 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > These addresses were suggested (or recommended?) by the script “get_maintainer.pl”. I know. (..) > How does this view fit to the information in the section “5) Select > the recipients for your patch” from the document “submitting-patches.rst”? We discussed and agreed about your patch. It is clear and simple and has no side effects to any other driver nor other subsystems. It was just about getting *this* patch into upstream where the Linux CAN ML is the right place to post - that was my suggestion. So there was no need to take the *standard* get_maintainer mail pump-gun again for this patch in order to save bandwidth, energy and peoples lifetime :-) Regards, Oliver
On 11/01/2017 03:16 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> > Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:56:15 +0100 > > Add a jump target so that a bit of exception handling can be better reused > at the end of this function. > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> applied to can-next. Tnx, Marc
diff --git a/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c b/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c index 8404e8852a0f..5d1753cfacea 100644 --- a/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c +++ b/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c @@ -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 < 0) + goto unregister_network_device; /* register first device */ if (tb[IFLA_IFNAME]) @@ -239,10 +237,8 @@ static int vxcan_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev, snprintf(dev->name, IFNAMSIZ, DRV_NAME "%%d"); err = register_netdevice(dev); - if (err < 0) { - unregister_netdevice(peer); - return err; - } + if (err < 0) + goto unregister_network_device; netif_carrier_off(dev); @@ -254,6 +250,10 @@ static int vxcan_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev, rcu_assign_pointer(priv->peer, dev); return 0; + +unregister_network_device: + unregister_netdevice(peer); + return err; } static void vxcan_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head)