Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB9dFdtT0p+Sg5=qt=Te9FEkASXcH=ZQZRHyN1UQ3nYkDLHMpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB9dFdtT0p+Sg5=qt=Te9FEkASXcH=ZQZRHyN1UQ3nYkDLHMpQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190527165413.GA26714@embeddedor>
To:     Marc Dionne <marc.c.dionne@gmail.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] afs: Fix logically dead code in afs_update_cell
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8580.1559059917.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 17:11:57 +0100
Message-ID: <8581.1559059917@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Marc Dionne <marc.c.dionne@gmail.com> wrote:

> > diff --git a/fs/afs/cell.c b/fs/afs/cell.c
> > index 9c3b07ba2222..980de60bf060 100644
> > --- a/fs/afs/cell.c
> > +++ b/fs/afs/cell.c
> > @@ -387,7 +387,6 @@ static int afs_update_cell(struct afs_cell *cell)
> >                 if (ret == -ENOMEM)
> >                         goto out_wake;
> >
> > -               ret = -ENOMEM;
> >                 vllist = afs_alloc_vlserver_list(0);
> >                 if (!vllist)
> >                         goto out_wake;
> 
> Looks like the intention here was to return -ENOMEM when
> afs_alloc_vlserver_list fails, which would mean that the fix should
> move the assignment within if (!vllist), rather than just removing it.
> Although it might be fine to just return the error that came from
> afs_dns_query instead, as you do in this patch.

I think I'd rather return the original error as this patch effects.  I'm
having a ponder on it.

David