On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Ansis Atteka <aatt...@nicira.com> wrote: > > diff --git a/datapath/datapath.c b/datapath/datapath.c > > index d64fc32..aa5be89 100644 > > --- a/datapath/datapath.c > > +++ b/datapath/datapath.c > > @@ -1885,7 +1885,7 @@ static int ovs_vport_cmd_set(struct sk_buff *skb, > struct genl_info *info) > > err = PTR_ERR(reply); > > netlink_set_err(GENL_SOCK(sock_net(skb->sk)), 0, > > ovs_dp_vport_multicast_group.id, err); > > - return 0; > > + goto exit_unlock; > > This has a side effect of changing the error code from 0 to -ENOMEM > (presumably that's why building the message failed), which I don't > think is right because the actual command succeeded. This is > obviously related to the other problem that you noticed with sending > messages on failure but we should try to avoid introducing side > effects in this patch. > You are right. But what would be the correct behavior if message building in ovs_vport_cmd_build_info() failed: 1. revert the altered config to the previous state and return error code (similarly as ovs_vport_cmd_new() does) 2. do not revert the altered config, but reply with 0 (the same behavior as before my patch)?
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
