From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] bond: Implement a basic set of rtnl link ops Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:33:37 +0100 Message-ID: <4AEAB2F1.5070200@trash.net> References: <1256861906-5059-5-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <4AEAA403.7080204@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh , "Eric W. Biederman" To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:39282 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755003AbZJ3Jdn (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:33:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Patrick McHardy writes: > >> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> +static struct rtnl_link_ops bond_link_ops __read_mostly = { >>> + .kind = "bond", >>> + .setup = bond_setup, >>> + .validate = bond_validate, >>> +}; >> One more thing - you need to initialize .priv_size here so >> the devices created through rtnl_link have enough private >> room allocated. > > Wow and the code works when I test it without that ouch! > > As for rtnl_link_register it always succeeds so let's just > remove the return code and call it good. You need unroll anyways for the other failure conditions, so why not simply add an err1/2 and be safe for future changes?