On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:27 PM Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:39:13AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> > > Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 07:32:35 -0400 > > > > > This is definately a valid cleanup, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better > > > to, > > > instead of removing it, to use it. We have 2 locations where we actually > > > call > > > sctp_make_init_ack, and then have to check the return code and abort the > > > operation if we get a NULL return. Would it be a better solution (in the > > > sense > > > of keeping our control flow in line with how the rest of the state > > > machine is > > > supposed to work), if we didn't just add a SCTP_CMD_GEN_INIT_ACK > > > sideeffect to > > > the state machine queue in the locations where we otherwise would call > > > sctp_make_init_ack/sctp_add_cmd_sf(...SCTP_CMD_REPLY)? I think they didn't do that, as the new INIT_ACK needs to add unk_param from the err_chunk which is allocated and freed in those two places sctp_sf_do_5_1B_init()/sctp_sf_do_unexpected_init().
It looks not good to pass that err_chunk as a param to the state machine. > > > > Also, net-next is closed 8-) > > > Details, details :) > So everytime before posting a patch on net-next, I should check http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html first, right?
