On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:01:50PM +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
Hi Martin,
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 04:08:34PM +0100, Martin Hundebøll wrote:
@@ -47,8 +48,9 @@ static void batadv_nc_start_timer(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv) int batadv_nc_init(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv) { bat_priv->nc.timestamp_fwd_flush = jiffies;
- bat_priv->nc.timestamp_sniffed_purge = jiffies;
- if (bat_priv->nc.coding_hash)
if (bat_priv->nc.coding_hash || bat_priv->nc.decoding_hash) return 0;
bat_priv->nc.coding_hash = batadv_hash_new(128);
@@ -58,6 +60,13 @@ int batadv_nc_init(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv) batadv_hash_set_lock_class(bat_priv->nc.coding_hash, &batadv_nc_coding_hash_lock_class_key);
- bat_priv->nc.decoding_hash = batadv_hash_new(128);
- if (!bat_priv->nc.decoding_hash)
goto err;the label err brings the flow to a lonely "return -ENOMEM". However if you it the case above it means that you already allocated "bat_priv->nc.coding_hash" successfully. May you need another label so that you can free "coding_hash" and avoid memory leak?
Sorry, I'm wrong here. Returning -ENOMEM will make the caller function proceed with the cleaning up. Therefore you can ignore this comment.
Cheers,