On 11/11/25 4:48 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> 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
>
If we're just excluding the most likely errors I'd rather switch it back
to void.
