On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 06:38:21PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 17:28:14 +0200 > > Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function. > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Link: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/LCJ16-Refactor_Strings-WSang_0.pdf > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/sctp/protocol.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/sctp/protocol.c b/net/sctp/protocol.c > index 2b1a6215bd2f..5e7c8a344770 100644 > --- a/net/sctp/protocol.c > +++ b/net/sctp/protocol.c > @@ -1447,5 +1447,4 @@ static __init int sctp_init(void) > if (!sctp_ep_hashtable) { > - pr_err("Failed endpoint_hash alloc\n"); Okay but then why not also delete the one a few lines below this one: if (!sctp_port_hashtable) { pr_err("Failed bind hash alloc\n"); status = -ENOMEM; goto err_bhash_alloc; } Seems the same pattern to me. > status = -ENOMEM; > goto err_ehash_alloc; > } > -- > 2.13.0 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
