On 11/11/25 11:42 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 11/7/25 5:15 AM, Daniel Jurgens wrote:
>> @@ -7121,6 +7301,15 @@ static int virtnet_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> }
>> vi->guest_offloads_capable = vi->guest_offloads;
>>
>> + /* Initialize flow filters. Not supported is an acceptable and common
>> + * return code
>> + */
>> + err = virtnet_ff_init(&vi->ff, vi->vdev);
>> + if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>> + rtnl_unlock();
>> + goto free_unregister_netdev;
>
> I'm sorry for not noticing the following earlier, but it looks like that
> the code could error out on ENOMEM even if the feature is not really
> supported, when `cap_id_list` allocation fails, which in turn looks a
> bit bad, as the allocated chunk is not that small (32K if I read
> correctly).
What about considering even ENOMEM not fatal here?
/P
