On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 19:26 +0300, Vasily Averin wrote:
> _svc_create_xprt() returns positive port number
> so its non-zero return value is not an error
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
> index 51d36230b6e3..130af22d5c66 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c
> @@ -296,9 +296,9 @@ int svc_create_xprt(struct svc_serv *serv, const char *xprt_name,
> request_module("svc%s", xprt_name);
> err = _svc_create_xprt(serv, xprt_name, net, family, port, flags);
> }
> - if (err)
> + if (err < 0)
> dprintk("svc: transport %s not found, err %d\n",
> - xprt_name, err);
> + xprt_name, -err);
> return err;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(svc_create_xprt);
This patch is fine, but _svc_create_xprt does not make it clear that it
returns a positive port number.
Would you be amenable to spinning up a patch to add a kerneldoc comment
over that function (and maybe one over svc_create_xprt too), to make it
clear what it does?
Thanks,
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
