Michael McConville wrote: > Michael McConville wrote: > > Does this make sense? > > I just realized that the allocation failure checks earlier in the > function return ENOBUFS. This probably makes more sense for the sake of > consistency.
The best I can tell, the only use of this function is in sys/crypto/crypto.c:157. It's accessed through a pointer stored in a struct by crypto_register(). That usage doesn't seem to be affected by the below change, considering that the outcome would be no different than that of the other ENOBUFS failures above it. > > Index: sys/crypto/cryptosoft.c > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/crypto/cryptosoft.c,v > > retrieving revision 1.80 > > diff -u -p -r1.80 cryptosoft.c > > --- sys/crypto/cryptosoft.c 10 Dec 2015 21:00:51 -0000 1.80 > > +++ sys/crypto/cryptosoft.c 26 Feb 2016 17:21:00 -0000 > > @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ swcr_newsession(u_int32_t *sid, struct c > > M_CRYPTO_DATA, M_NOWAIT | M_ZERO); > > if ((*swd)->sw_kschedule == NULL) { > > swcr_freesession(i); > > - return EINVAL; > > + return ENOMEM; > > } > > } > > if (txf->setkey((*swd)->sw_kschedule, cri->cri_key, > > >