On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 04:20:03PM -0800, Chris Lew wrote:
>
>
> On 12/23/2023 5:56 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > [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>
> >
> > ...
>
> Hi Simon, thanks for the review and suggestion. We weren't sure whether we
> should change the function prototype on these patches on the chance that
> there will be something that listens and handles this in the future. I think
> it's a good idea to change it to void and we can change it back if there is
> such a usecase in the future.
Hi Chris,
yes, I think that would be a good approach.
