[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080829172304.bcfa5f9d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:23:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dyn_array: using %pF instead of
print_fn_descriptor_symbol
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:34:26 -0700
"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >> ptr = __alloc_bootmem_nopanic(total_size, max_align, 0);
> >> if (!ptr)
> >> panic("Can not alloc dyn_alloc\n");
>
> like to give exact error message.
It's pointless. panic() will do a dump_stack().
> >
> > Why duplicate the panic()? Just call __alloc_bootmem().
> >
> >> #ifdef CONFIF_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
> >
> > That doesn't appear to have been very well tested?
>
> ah!
> it should break sparc, m68k, and s390...
>
> >
> > The code has a few coding-style glitches which checkpatch can detect.
> >
>
> should only have 80 char length warning...
>
sure. The code looks rather miserable in an 80-col display.
there's also
WARNING: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks
#119: FILE: dyn_array.c:119:
+ if (da->init_work) {
+ da->init_work(da);
+ }
and checkpatch should have detected the misplaced semicolon here:
+ for (daa = __per_cpu_dyn_array_start ; daa < __per_cpu_dyn_array_end; daa++) {
but didn't.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists