Hi Markus,
On 10/27/2017 10:30 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 22:22:24 +0200
>
> * Add a jump target so that a bit of exception handling can be better
> reused at the end of this function.
>
> * Adjust two condition checks.
>
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/can/vxcan.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c b/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c
> index 8404e8852a0f..97f250cbc4ff 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/vxcan.c
> @@ -227,10 +227,8 @@ static int vxcan_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev,
> netif_carrier_off(peer);
>
> err = rtnl_configure_link(peer, ifmp);
> - if (err < 0) {
> - unregister_netdevice(peer);
> - return err;
> - }
> + if (err)
> + goto unregister_network_device;
You are changing semantic in the if-statement here.
I would be fine with the patch if you revert that if-statement as I
would like to stay on the behavior from veth.c in veth_newlink().
Regards,
Oliver
>
> /* register first device */
> if (tb[IFLA_IFNAME])
> @@ -239,10 +237,8 @@ static int vxcan_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev,
> snprintf(dev->name, IFNAMSIZ, DRV_NAME "%%d");
>
> err = register_netdevice(dev);
> - if (err < 0) {
> - unregister_netdevice(peer);
> - return err;
> - }
> + if (err)
> + goto unregister_network_device;
>
> netif_carrier_off(dev);
>
> @@ -254,6 +250,10 @@ static int vxcan_newlink(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev,
> rcu_assign_pointer(priv->peer, dev);
>
> return 0;
> +
> +unregister_network_device:
> + unregister_netdevice(peer);
> + return err;
> }
>
> static void vxcan_dellink(struct net_device *dev, struct list_head *head)
>
From 1582444210998746418@xxx Fri Oct 27 20:33:21 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582444210998746418
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums