Re: [PATCH 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection

From	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection
Date	2016-01-01 14:10 +0100
Message-ID	<qM7CW-2R6-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qEuGl-43C-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qM6Qy-2kR-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qM70e-2ob-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qM79U-2rl-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qM7tf-2y5-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar_ethtool.c
> >> @@ -778,11 +778,13 @@ static int gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table(struct gfar_private *priv, u64 ethflow,
> >>  
> >>  	local_rqfpr = kmalloc_array(MAX_FILER_IDX + 1, sizeof(unsigned int),
> >>  				    GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	if (!local_rqfpr)
> >> +		return 1;
> > 
> > Why return 1?  Previously 0 was returned.
> 
> You are right. - Unfortunately, I made a mistake at this place
> of my update suggestion.
> 
> 
> > Normally, one returns -ENOMEM for this case, but it looks like this 
> > function is returning 0 on failure.
> 
> Should a symbol like "false" be used instead of such a special number?

Maybe it's better than 0 and 1...

julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

[PATCH 0/3] net-gianfar: Fine-tuning for  gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-01 13:20 +0100
  [PATCH 2/3] net-gianfar: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations  in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-01 13:30 +0100
  [PATCH 3/3] net-gianfar: Extend an initialisation clause of a for  loop in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-01 13:30 +0100
  [PATCH 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in  gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-01 13:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in  gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2016-01-01 13:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in  gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-01 14:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in  gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2016-01-01 14:10 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in  gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection Francois Romieu <romieu@fr.zoreil.com> - 2016-01-01 15:50 +0100
      [PATCH v2 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in  gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-01-01 14:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in  gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2016-01-02 04:20 +0100

csiph-web