On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 07:36:29AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote: > > +no_info: > > + rtnl_close(fd); > > + return len; > > +} > > Here len is -1, as an error flag. Why simply propagate that error > correct up the call stack? > > No need for rtnl_close() here.
The proper usage is: rtnl_open() rtnl_... rtnl_close() Calling rtnl_close() calls close(fd), and so your new call site is buggy. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel