[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111110180021.GA31156@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:00:22 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pids: Make alloc_pid return error
On 11/10, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ struct pid *alloc_pid(struct pid_namespace *ns)
> {
> struct pid *pid;
> enum pid_type type;
> - int i, nr;
> + int i, nr = -ENOMEM;
> struct pid_namespace *tmp;
> struct upid *upid;
This doesn't look right at first glance... I mean, if
the first kmem_cache_alloc(ns->pid_cachep) fails, this -ENOMEM
won't be returned as ERR_PTR().
> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ out_free:
> free_pidmap(pid->numbers + i);
>
> kmem_cache_free(ns->pid_cachep, pid);
> - pid = NULL;
> + pid = ERR_PTR(nr);
> goto out;
Off-topic, but with or withoit this patch this "goto out" looks
strange imho. Why not a simple
- pid = NULL;
- goto out;
+ return ERR_PTR(nr);
instead? But this is minor and subjective, I won't insist.
Oleg.
--
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