Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: return negative value in case rpcbind clientcreation error

[Myklebust, Trond]

On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 15:57 +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> Without this patch kernel will panic on LockD start, because lockd_up() checks
> lockd_up_net() result for negative value.
> >From my pow it's better to return negative value from rpcbind routines instead
> of replacing all such checks like in lockd_up().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
> index 92509ff..a70acae 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static int rpcb_create_local_unix(struct net *net)
>  	if (IS_ERR(clnt)) {
>  		dprintk("RPC:       failed to create AF_LOCAL rpcbind "
>  				"client (errno %ld).\n", PTR_ERR(clnt));
> -		result = -PTR_ERR(clnt);
> +		result = PTR_ERR(clnt);
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ static int rpcb_create_local_net(struct net *net)
>  	if (IS_ERR(clnt)) {
>  		dprintk("RPC:       failed to create local rpcbind "
>  				"client (errno %ld).\n", PTR_ERR(clnt));
> -		result = -PTR_ERR(clnt);
> +		result = PTR_ERR(clnt);
>  		goto out;
>  	}

Who is supposed to carry this patch? Is it Bruce or is it me?

Cheers
  Trond

èº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËlzwm…ébëæìr¸›zX§»®w¥Š{ayºÊÚë,j­¢f£¢·hš‹àz¹®w¥¢¸¢·¦j:+v‰¨ŠwèjØm¶Ÿÿ¾«‘êçzZ+ƒùšŽŠÝj"ú!¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^¶m§ÿðÃnÆàþY&—