David Bustos writes: > Quoth Tom Whitten on Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 04:45:58PM -0700: > > David Bustos writes: > > > Quoth Tom Whitten on Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:07:29PM -0700: > > > > I've incorporated the changes suggested by David and Gary. There is a > > > > new > > > > full webrev showing the differences between my workspace and the > > > > onnv-clone > > > > at http://cr.opensolaris.org/~fourctom/audit_10_dec_2008/. In addition > ... > > > cmd/svc/configd/rc_node.c > > > 5507: Please use bad_error() here. > > > > > > 5955: If this assert()ion is valid, then isn't the following if > > > statement superfluous? > > > > I don't think so. ret could have been set to something other than > > REP_PROTOCOL_SUCCESS in a number of places before line 5952. If > > that happens, the code from 5953 to 5955 including the assert() > > will not be executed. > > Right, so doesn't that mean that we won't execute the code from 5958 to > 5970, either? I don't understand how we can execute one of these if > statements, but not the other. > > > David
Ah. I see what your driving at. My inclination is to remove the assert and let the error return percolate back up to the callers. I've checked the tree of callers to verify that they properly handle this return. I also checked to see how the return is propagated back to libscf, and verified that callers of the library functions also properly handled the error return as it gets mapped. tom
