On Friday, March 11, 2016, Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com> wrote: > On 03/11/2016 02:34 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > >> >> >> Le ven. 11 mars 2016 19:13, Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com >> <mailto:jba...@fb.com>> a écrit : >> >> On 03/11/2016 12:23 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Friday, March 11, 2016, Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com >> <mailto:jba...@fb.com> >> > <mailto:jba...@fb.com <mailto:jba...@fb.com>>> wrote: >> > >> > If you try to load an initrd from http and it errors out we >> will >> > free the initrd >> > context but continue on because net_tcp_socket_close() will >> reset >> > the grub_errno >> > as will grub_initrd_close(). So we'll lose the errno and >> return >> > GRUB_ERR_NONE >> > instead of the original error. Add push/pulls to the >> appropriate >> > places so we >> > don't lose our errno. Thanks, >> > >> > Close functions shouldn't do this. Can you fix them instead? Also >> please >> > add [2.02] to the subjectwhen appropriate, like in this case. >> > >> >> So do we not want close functions to do grub_error() at all? Seems >> like >> there may be some cases where we want to know there was an error >> closing >> a tcp socket or the initrd? Maybe not, just want to make sure before >> I >> go make these two functions void. >> >> How can a failure occur in close routines? What can we do with the >> failure anyway? >> > > So sending the FIN packet for the tcp close was failing for example. I > don't think we can do anything really, I just don't like doing a patch 4 > times, so I want to make sure turning these close functions into void's is > ok. Thanks, > > I prefer void close functions. Give it another day and if nobody objects by then, then it's fine for everyone.
> Josef > > -- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
