Re: [PATCH net-next] nfp: flower-ct: fix error return code in nfp_fl_ct_add_offload()

[Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>]

On 2021/07/28 11:56, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:36:43AM +0200, Louis Peens wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/07/28 11:16, Yang Yingliang wrote:
>>> If nfp_tunnel_add_ipv6_off() fails, it should return error code
>>> in nfp_fl_ct_add_offload().
>>>
>>> Fixes: 5a2b93041646 ("nfp: flower-ct: compile match sections of flow_payload")
>>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>> Ah, thanks Yang, I was just preparing a patch for this myself. This was first reported by
>> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> on 26 Jul 2021 (added to CC).
>>
>> 	'Hello Louis Peens,
>>
>> 	The patch 5a2b93041646: "nfp: flower-ct: compile match sections of
>> 	flow_payload" from Jul 22, 2021, leads to the following static
>> 	checker warning:
>> 	.....'
>>
>> I'm not sure what the usual procedure would be for this, I would think adding
>> another "Reported-by" line would be sufficient?'
> 
> Just leave it, it's fine.
> 
>>
>> Anyway, for the patch itself the change looks good to me, thanks:
>> Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@corigine.com>
> 
> Normally it would be Acked-by.  Signed-off-by means you handled the
> patch and it's like signing a legal document that you didn't violate
> SCO copyrights etc.
ack :) Thanks for the clarification, the distinction does confuse me,
thinking about it this way would definitely help.

Regards
Louis Peens
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>