Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 16:14:07 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r225586 - in head/sys: modules/netgraph/ipfw netgraph Message-ID: <20111009121407.GA94905@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E918B48.5080408@FreeBSD.org> References: <201109151228.p8FCSHVY073618@svn.freebsd.org> <20111009063420.GZ94905@FreeBSD.org> <4E918B48.5080408@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 03:53:44PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
A> Understood. So can we use more descriptive ENOENT in code below?
A>
A> tag = m_tag_locate(m, MTAG_IPFW_RULE, 0, NULL);
A> if (tag == NULL) {
A> NG_FREE_M(m);
A> return (EINVAL); /* XXX: find smth better */
A> };
Let you decide that. However, you can first analyze other places in kernel,
where m_tag_locate() really should succeed but fails. After that you probably
would want to have the same error return value in all these places :)
A> Please see an attached patch
Patch is ok from my view.
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111009121407.GA94905>