[Dropped bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx, as the correct address seems to be andersson@xxxxxxxxxx, which is already in the CC list. kernel.org rejected sending this email without that update.] On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:36:51PM +0530, Sarannya S wrote: > When a 'DEL_CLIENT' message is received from the remote, the corresponding > server port gets deleted. A DEL_SERVER message is then announced for this > server. As part of handling the subsequent DEL_SERVER message, the name- > server attempts to delete the server port which results in a '-ENOENT' error. > The return value from server_del() is then propagated back to qrtr_ns_worker, > causing excessive error prints. > To address this, return 0 from control_cmd_del_server() without checking the > return value of server_del(), since the above scenario is not an error case > and hence server_del() doesn't have any other error return value. > > Signed-off-by: Sarannya Sasikumar <quic_sarannya@xxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, I have a suggestion below. But that notwithstanding this change looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/qrtr/ns.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/qrtr/ns.c b/net/qrtr/ns.c > index b1db0b5..abb0c70 100644 > --- a/net/qrtr/ns.c > +++ b/net/qrtr/ns.c > @@ -512,7 +512,9 @@ static int ctrl_cmd_del_server(struct sockaddr_qrtr *from, > if (!node) > return -ENOENT; > > - return server_del(node, port, true); > + server_del(node, port, true); > + > + return 0; > } With this change the return value of server_del() now seems to be ignored by all callers. Perhaps it would make sense to update it to return void? > > static int ctrl_cmd_new_lookup(struct sockaddr_qrtr *from, > -- > 2.7.4 > >
