[Dropped bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx, as the correct address seems
to be andersson@xxxxxxxxxx, which is already in the CC list.
kernel.org rejected sending this email without that update.]
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:36:50PM +0530, Sarannya S wrote:
> From: Chris Lew <quic_clew@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Ignore the ENODEV failures returned by kernel_sendmsg(). These errors
> indicate that either the local port has been closed or the remote has
> gone down. Neither of these scenarios are fatal and will eventually be
> handled through packets that are later queued on the control port.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sarannya Sasikumar <quic_sarannya@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/qrtr/ns.c | 11 +++++++----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/qrtr/ns.c b/net/qrtr/ns.c
> index abb0c70..8234339 100644
> --- a/net/qrtr/ns.c
> +++ b/net/qrtr/ns.c
> @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static int service_announce_del(struct sockaddr_qrtr *dest,
> msg.msg_namelen = sizeof(*dest);
>
> ret = kernel_sendmsg(qrtr_ns.sock, &msg, &iv, 1, sizeof(pkt));
> - if (ret < 0)
> + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV)
> pr_err("failed to announce del service\n");
>
> return ret;
Hi,
The caller of service_announce_del() ignores it's return value.
So the only action on error is the pr_err() call above, and so
with this patch -ENODEV is indeed ignored.
However, I wonder if it would make things clearer to the reader (me?)
if the return type of service_announce_del was updated void. Because
as things stand -ENODEV may be returned, which implies something might
handle that, even though it doe not.
The above notwithstanding, this change looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx>
...
