On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 15:57 +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> Without this patch kernel will panic on LockD start, because lockd_up() checks
> lockd_up_net() result for negative value.
> >From my pow it's better to return negative value from rpcbind routines instead
> of replacing all such checks like in lockd_up().
>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
> index 92509ff..a70acae 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static int rpcb_create_local_unix(struct net *net)
> if (IS_ERR(clnt)) {
> dprintk("RPC: failed to create AF_LOCAL rpcbind "
> "client (errno %ld).\n", PTR_ERR(clnt));
> - result = -PTR_ERR(clnt);
> + result = PTR_ERR(clnt);
> goto out;
> }
>
> @@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ static int rpcb_create_local_net(struct net *net)
> if (IS_ERR(clnt)) {
> dprintk("RPC: failed to create local rpcbind "
> "client (errno %ld).\n", PTR_ERR(clnt));
> - result = -PTR_ERR(clnt);
> + result = PTR_ERR(clnt);
> goto out;
> }
Who is supposed to carry this patch? Is it Bruce or is it me?
Cheers
Trond
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
