On 15 January 2018 at 21:18, Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianc...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 03:50:54PM +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >>> Although this issue is harmless since that code path is protected by the >>> check on l2tp_nl_cmd_ops[]/l2tp_nl_cmd_ops[]->session_create(), fix error >>> handling for L2TP_PWTYPE_IP/default case in l2tp_nl_cmd_session_create() >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianc...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c >>> index e1ca29f79821..48b5bf30ec50 100644 >>> --- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c >>> +++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_netlink.c >>> @@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ static int l2tp_nl_cmd_session_create(struct sk_buff >>> *skb, struct genl_info *inf >>> case L2TP_PWTYPE_IP: >>> default: >>> ret = -EPROTONOSUPPORT; >>> - break; >>> + goto out_tunnel; >>> } >>> >> Not sure if this change is really worthwhile. As you noted, this is >> unreachable code. And this switch should better be removed entirely: >> it doesn't do anything for supported pseudo-wires. >> >> And if PWTYPE_ETH_VLAN were to be implemented, it should perform its >> configuration consistency checking in its own PW specific code, not in >> the genl handler. >> > > Personally I would prefer to not remove some code that could be useful > for a future implementation, but just fix it if it presents issues to > address. > Anyway we can simply drop this patch from the series and I can send a > new one to remove the switch entirely. > > @James what do you think?
Keep the patch series focused. If you read the patch series as a set, this patch stands out as not fitting the purpose of the series. I agree with Guillaume. > > Regards, > Lorenzo > >> Anyway, removing this switch isn't the purpose of this series, so I >> think you can drop this patch. I agree.
