linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] perf util: Get rid of malloc_or

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1363749205.6345.5.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:13:25 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] perf util: Get rid of malloc_or_die() in
 trace-event-read.c

On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:00 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:55:02 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 10:14 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:50:02 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 17:53 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> >>  	free(version);
> >> >> @@ -331,11 +354,12 @@ ssize_t trace_report(int fd, struct pevent **ppevent, bool __repipe)
> >> >>  
> >> >>  	page_size = read4(pevent);
> >> >>  
> >> >> -	read_header_files(pevent);
> >> >> -	read_ftrace_files(pevent);
> >> >> -	read_event_files(pevent);
> >> >> -	read_proc_kallsyms(pevent);
> >> >> -	read_ftrace_printk(pevent);
> >> >> +	if (read_header_files(pevent) ||
> >> >> +	    read_ftrace_files(pevent) ||
> >> >> +	    read_event_files(pevent) ||
> >> >> +	    read_proc_kallsyms(pevent) ||
> >> >> +	    read_ftrace_printk(pevent))
> >> >> +		goto out;
> >> >
> >> > I think I like the err += func() and check for err < 0, better.
> >> 
> >> Okay, I'll change them to err |= func() style if you're fine as Peter
> >> suggested.
> >
> > += or |= I'm not picky ;-)
> 
> Ah, one thing I also care was the short-circuit logic.  I think we don't
> need to call later functions if one fails, do we?

Yeah, good point. It still looks ugly, but it does make sense.

-- Steve


--
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/