From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752027AbdC0SVT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:21:19 -0400
Received: from mail-vk0-f48.google.com ([209.85.213.48]:35908 "EHLO
        mail-vk0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751364AbdC0SVL (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:21:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP: [108.49.102.27]
In-Reply-To: <1ae9af46-a3ca-33b8-d347-8983a22cb3cb@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <ca34123f-ced6-d2bc-363b-690858618827@users.sourceforge.net>
 <247c0e27-c442-3408-4f92-492629d61fbf@users.sourceforge.net>
 <CAHC9VhRHEDCRNVfOqw4mwJQD9PmESEcgyZ7xCEwHZKpiDSjnYw@mail.gmail.com> <1ae9af46-a3ca-33b8-d347-8983a22cb3cb@users.sourceforge.net>
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:20:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSPv11X=HYV3qoiMV4GDg4VDaxvNYru0xDjU4Y2t27CPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: selinux: Delete unnecessary variable assignments in policydb_index()
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        William Roberts <william.c.roberts@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.home.local id v2RILkrU004043

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 2:24 AM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> However, I agree with Casey that this patch is mostly just code churn
>> so I'm going to drop this from your series.
>
> How do you think about to return only constant error codes in this function?
> Would it be acceptable to replace any statements “goto out;” with
> “return -ENOMEM;” here instead?

Yes.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com