On 27 February 2016 at 08:21, Michael McConville <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
So why change it to ENOMEM then? Nothing there returns it. I think this is just needless churn.
