On Mar 14, 2011, at 6:36 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:27:35PM +0100, roel wrote: >> The break is in the inner loop, the svc_register() error is overwritten >> in the next iteration. Only the error in the last iteration is returned. >> >> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 2 ++ >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> Is this needed? >> >> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc.c b/net/sunrpc/svc.c >> index 08e05a8..5fd08c0 100644 >> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc.c >> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc.c >> @@ -889,6 +889,8 @@ int svc_register(const struct svc_serv *serv, const int family, >> if (error < 0) >> break; > > May as well just "goto out" or "return error" here? > > But: aren't we missing some cleanup? If we succesfully register one > program then fail at a second one, don't we need to unregister the > first? Right. I don't understand what is the intended effect here (of the original code): Best effort registration, or "all or none"? > --b. > >> } >> + if (error < 0) >> + break; >> } >> >> return error; > -- > 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 -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com -- 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
