[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874n6hlcur.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:21:48 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] tools lib traceevent: Get rid of malloc_or_die() allocate_arg()
On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:05:19 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:34:01 +0900
> Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> @@ -409,8 +408,10 @@ create_arg_op(enum filter_op_type btype)
>> struct filter_arg *arg;
>>
>> arg = allocate_arg();
>> - arg->type = FILTER_ARG_OP;
>> - arg->op.type = btype;
>> + if (arg) {
>> + arg->type = FILTER_ARG_OP;
>> + arg->op.type = btype;
>> + }
>>
>> return arg;
>> }
>> @@ -421,8 +422,10 @@ create_arg_exp(enum filter_exp_type etype)
>> struct filter_arg *arg;
>>
>> arg = allocate_arg();
>> - arg->type = FILTER_ARG_EXP;
>> - arg->op.type = etype;
>> + if (arg) {
>> + arg->type = FILTER_ARG_EXP;
>> + arg->op.type = etype;
>> + }
>>
>> return arg;
>> }
>> @@ -433,9 +436,11 @@ create_arg_cmp(enum filter_exp_type etype)
>> struct filter_arg *arg;
>>
>> arg = allocate_arg();
>> - /* Use NUM and change if necessary */
>> - arg->type = FILTER_ARG_NUM;
>> - arg->op.type = etype;
>> + if (arg) {
>> + /* Use NUM and change if necessary */
>> + arg->type = FILTER_ARG_NUM;
>> + arg->op.type = etype;
>> + }
>>
>> return arg;
>> }
>> @@ -896,8 +901,10 @@ static struct filter_arg *collapse_tree(struct filter_arg *arg)
>> case FILTER_VAL_FALSE:
>> free_arg(arg);
>> arg = allocate_arg();
>> - arg->type = FILTER_ARG_BOOLEAN;
>> - arg->boolean.value = ret == FILTER_VAL_TRUE;
>> + if (arg) {
>> + arg->type = FILTER_ARG_BOOLEAN;
>> + arg->boolean.value = ret == FILTER_VAL_TRUE;
>> + }
>
> Just a nit, but I wonder if all these would look nicer if we just did:
>
> arg = allocate_arg();
> if (!arg)
> return NULL;
> [...]
>
> Instead of doing the work within an if statement.
Sure, no problem.
>
> Also, I prefer if (!arg) over if (arg == NULL), but I'm not going to
> fight over that ;-)
Yeah, it's about preference. I can do it your way from now on if you
want while as you can see it's more error-prone - but no, I didn't do it
intentionally because of that. ;-)
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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