On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 22:03 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 13:59 +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > f300bab "nfsd41: sunrpc: add new xprt class for nfsv4.1 backchannel" > > > introduced an error case branch that lacks an actual `return' keyword > > > before the return value. Add it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jw@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Alexandros Batsakis <batsakis@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c > > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c > > > @@ -2444,7 +2444,7 @@ static struct rpc_xprt *xs_setup_bc_tcp( > > > struct svc_sock *bc_sock; > > > > > > if (!args->bc_xprt) > > > - ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > > > > > xprt = xs_setup_xprt(args, xprt_tcp_slot_table_entries); > > > if (IS_ERR(xprt)) > > > > No. It should either be a BUG_ON(), or else be removed entirely. > > Returning an error value for something that is clearly a programming bug > > is not a particularly useful exercise... > > > Removing NULL check is wrong because it will NULL pointer dereference later. Wrong. Removing NULL check is _right_ because calling this function without setting up a back channel first is a major BUG. Returning an error value to the user is pointless, since the user has no control over this. It is entirely under control of the sunrpc developers... Trond -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
