On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 09:46:21PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> +++ b/net/sctp/protocol.c
> >> @@ -1447,5 +1447,4 @@ static __init int sctp_init(void)
> >> if (!sctp_ep_hashtable) {
> >> - pr_err("Failed endpoint_hash alloc\n");
> >
> > Okay but then why not also delete the one a few lines below this one:
> > if (!sctp_port_hashtable) {
> > pr_err("Failed bind hash alloc\n");
> > status = -ENOMEM;
> > goto err_bhash_alloc;
> > }
> > Seems the same pattern to me.
> >
> >> status = -ENOMEM;
> >> goto err_ehash_alloc;
> >> }
>
> How do you think about to remove the other error message in another
> update step if a consensus would be achieved in such a direction
> for this software module?
Fine by me.
Regards,
Marcelo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
