On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 01:52:48PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:27 PM Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:39:13AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 07:32:35 -0400 > > > > > > > This is definately a valid cleanup, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to, > > > > instead of removing it, to use it. We have 2 locations where we actually call > > > > sctp_make_init_ack, and then have to check the return code and abort the > > > > operation if we get a NULL return. Would it be a better solution (in the sense > > > > of keeping our control flow in line with how the rest of the state machine is > > > > supposed to work), if we didn't just add a SCTP_CMD_GEN_INIT_ACK sideeffect to > > > > the state machine queue in the locations where we otherwise would call > > > > sctp_make_init_ack/sctp_add_cmd_sf(...SCTP_CMD_REPLY)? > I think they didn't do that, as the new INIT_ACK needs to add unk_param from > the err_chunk which is allocated and freed in those two places > sctp_sf_do_5_1B_init()/sctp_sf_do_unexpected_init(). > > It looks not good to pass that err_chunk as a param to the state machine. > Hmm, perhaps you're right, this does look like the more clean way to do this, even if its outside the state machine ordering Neil > > > > > > Also, net-next is closed 8-) > > > > > Details, details :) > > > So everytime before posting a patch on net-next, > I should check http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html first, right? >
