Bob,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Bob Peterson <rpete...@redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> > +out_err:
>> > + sock_release(sock);
>> > + sock = NULL;
>> > + con->sock = NULL;
>>
>> Consolidating the error paths makes sense, but con->sock shouldn't be
>> set here at all; the caller does that in add_sock().
>
> I disagree.
>
> The caller doesn't call add_sock() in the error case, which is where
> we're setting con->sock to NULL.
well, the caller sets con->sock on success, so why doesn't it set it on failure
as well?
Andreas
---
fs/dlm/lowcomms.c | 12 ++++--------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
index ac7eae4..0d6e374 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
@@ -1265,7 +1265,6 @@ create_out:
out_err:
sock_release(sock);
sock = NULL;
- con->sock = NULL;
goto create_out;
}
@@ -1352,7 +1351,6 @@ static int tcp_listen_for_all(void)
{
struct socket *sock = NULL;
struct connection *con = nodeid2con(0, GFP_NOFS);
- int result = -EINVAL;
if (!con)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -1369,13 +1367,11 @@ static int tcp_listen_for_all(void)
sock = tcp_create_listen_sock(con, dlm_local_addr[0]);
if (sock) {
add_sock(sock, con);
- result = 0;
- }
- else {
- result = -EADDRINUSE;
+ return 0;
+ } else {
+ con->sock = NULL;
+ return -EADDRINUSE;
}
-
- return result;
}
--
2.5.0
