Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] net: qrtr: ns: Return 0 if server port is not present

From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 13:58:25 +0000

[Dropped [email-masked], as the correct address seems
 to be [email-masked], which is already in the CC list.
 kernel.org rejected sending this email without that update.]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:36:51PM +0530, Sarannya S wrote:
> When a 'DEL_CLIENT' message is received from the remote, the corresponding
> server port gets deleted. A DEL_SERVER message is then announced for this
> server. As part of handling the subsequent DEL_SERVER message, the name-
> server attempts to delete the server port which results in a '-ENOENT' error.
> The return value from server_del() is then propagated back to qrtr_ns_worker,
> causing excessive error prints.
> To address this, return 0 from control_cmd_del_server() without checking the
> return value of server_del(), since the above scenario is not an error case
> and hence server_del() doesn't have any other error return value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sarannya Sasikumar <[email-masked]>

Thanks,

I have a suggestion below. But that notwithstanding this change
looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>

> ---
>  net/qrtr/ns.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/qrtr/ns.c b/net/qrtr/ns.c
> index b1db0b5..abb0c70 100644
> --- a/net/qrtr/ns.c
> +++ b/net/qrtr/ns.c
> @@ -512,7 +512,9 @@ static int ctrl_cmd_del_server(struct sockaddr_qrtr *from,
>  	if (!node)
>  		return -ENOENT;
>  
> -	return server_del(node, port, true);
> +	server_del(node, port, true);
> +
> +	return 0;
>  }

With this change the return value of server_del() now seems to be
ignored by all callers. Perhaps it would make sense to update it
to return void?

>  
>  static int ctrl_cmd_new_lookup(struct sockaddr_qrtr *from,
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 
>