[Dropped [email protected], as the correct address seems to be [email protected], which is already in the CC list. kernel.org rejected sending this email without that update.]
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:36:50PM +0530, Sarannya S wrote: > From: Chris Lew <[email protected]> > > Ignore the ENODEV failures returned by kernel_sendmsg(). These errors > indicate that either the local port has been closed or the remote has > gone down. Neither of these scenarios are fatal and will eventually be > handled through packets that are later queued on the control port. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Sarannya Sasikumar <[email protected]> > --- > net/qrtr/ns.c | 11 +++++++---- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/qrtr/ns.c b/net/qrtr/ns.c > index abb0c70..8234339 100644 > --- a/net/qrtr/ns.c > +++ b/net/qrtr/ns.c > @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static int service_announce_del(struct sockaddr_qrtr > *dest, > msg.msg_namelen = sizeof(*dest); > > ret = kernel_sendmsg(qrtr_ns.sock, &msg, &iv, 1, sizeof(pkt)); > - if (ret < 0) > + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENODEV) > pr_err("failed to announce del service\n"); > > return ret; Hi, The caller of service_announce_del() ignores it's return value. So the only action on error is the pr_err() call above, and so with this patch -ENODEV is indeed ignored. However, I wonder if it would make things clearer to the reader (me?) if the return type of service_announce_del was updated void. Because as things stand -ENODEV may be returned, which implies something might handle that, even though it doe not. The above notwithstanding, this change looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> ...
