Hey - first of all, sorry for the long delay on responding to this,
I've just gotten back to my patch queue.

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Abhishek Kulkarni <kulkarni@lanl.gov> wrote:
quoted text
> Resubmitting my previous 9p bug fix patch that removes the bogus return
> value in p9_put_data which made every p9_client_write fail.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Kulkarni <kulkarni@lanl.gov>
> ---

Please include the original description when resubmitting patches --
this will allow me to suck it into my tree more effectively.

quoted text
>
> -static int
> +static void
>  p9_put_data(struct cbuf *bufp, const char *data, int count,
>                   unsigned char **pdata)
>  {
>        *pdata = buf_alloc(bufp, count);
>        memmove(*pdata, data, count);
> -       return count;
>  }
>

What happens if buf_alloc returns NULL?

Isn't the right behavior something more along the lines of:

static int
p9_put_data(struct cbuf *bufp, const char *data, int count,
                   unsigned char **pdata)
{
        *pdata = buf_alloc(bufp, count);'
        if(*pdata)
            memmove(*pdata, data, count);
            return 0;
        else
            return ENOMEM;
}

                  -eric
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/