Fix afs_send_simple_reply() to accept a greater-than-zero return value from
rxrpc_kernel_send_data() as being a successful return rather than thinking it
an error and aborting the call.
rxrpc_kernel_send_data() previously returned zero incorrectly when it worked
successfully, but has been patched
Fix afs_send_simple_reply() to accept a greater-than-zero return value from
rxrpc_kernel_send_data() as being a successful return rather than thinking it
an error and aborting the call.
rxrpc_kernel_send_data() previously returned zero incorrectly when it worked
successfully, but has been patched
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, David Howells wrote:
>
> @@ -806,8 +807,9 @@ void afs_send_simple_reply(struct afs_call *call, const
> void *buf, size_t len)
> msg.msg_flags = 0;
>
> call->state = AFS_CALL_AWAIT_ACK;
> - switch (rxrpc_kernel_send_data(call->rxcall, , len)) {
>
Fix afs_send_simple_reply() to accept a greater-than-zero return value from
rxrpc_kernel_send_data() as being a successful return rather than thinking it
an error and aborting the call.
rxrpc_kernel_send_data() previously returned zero incorrectly when it worked
successfully, but has been patched
Fix afs_send_simple_reply() to accept a greater-than-zero return value from
rxrpc_kernel_send_data() as being a successful return rather than thinking it
an error and aborting the call.
rxrpc_kernel_send_data() previously returned zero incorrectly when it worked
successfully, but has been patched
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, David Howells wrote:
@@ -806,8 +807,9 @@ void afs_send_simple_reply(struct afs_call *call, const
void *buf, size_t len)
msg.msg_flags = 0;
call-state = AFS_CALL_AWAIT_ACK;
- switch (rxrpc_kernel_send_data(call-rxcall, msg, len)) {
-
6 matches
Mail list logo