From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751998AbcAANFh (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:05:37 -0500 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:27263 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751912AbcAANFR (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:05:17 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,507,1444687200"; d="scan'208";a="195192393" Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 14:05:15 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@localhost6.localdomain6 To: SF Markus Elfring cc: Julia Lawall , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Claudiu Manoil , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detection In-Reply-To: <56867607.4090907@users.sourceforge.net> Message-ID: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <56866E7F.8080609@users.sourceforge.net> <56866F68.6070904@users.sourceforge.net> <56867607.4090907@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 13:05:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net-gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() after error detect Message-Id: List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <56866E7F.8080609@users.sourceforge.net> <56866F68.6070904@users.sourceforge.net> <56867607.4090907@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <56867607.4090907@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: Julia Lawall , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Claudiu Manoil , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org 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