On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 12:22 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Mon 29-09-14 16:08:22, Joe Perches wrote: > > Since adding a new function to seq_file (seq_is_full) > > there isn't any value for functions called from seq_show to > > return anything. Remove the int returns of the various > > print_tuple/<foo>_print_tuple functions.
[a bunch of quoted stuff] Please remember to cut out from your replies the unnecessary old stuff. It can take quite awhile to scan through looking for your comments. > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c > > b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c [] > > @@ -202,9 +203,8 @@ static int ct_seq_show(struct seq_file *s, void *v) > > if (l4proto->print_conntrack && l4proto->print_conntrack(s, ct)) > > goto release; > > > > - if (print_tuple(s, &ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].tuple, > > - l3proto, l4proto)) > > - goto release; > > + print_tuple(s, &ct->tuplehash[IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL].tuple, > > + l3proto, l4proto); > > To be precise, we should add: > > if (seq_overflow(s)) > goto release; Precision isn't all that useful when checking seq_<output>. There really isn't much value in checking each possible overflow site. A periodic check prior to or in the middle of a more costly/longish operation should be acceptable. The entire block that precedes any seq buffer full test will be redone when the buffer is expanded. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
