[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151214110003.GV5284@mwanda>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 14:00:03 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] staging: lustre: Less checks in
mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 02:57:38PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:21:17 +0100
>
> A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function
> even if it is known already that the passed variable "pages" contained
> a null pointer.
>
> * Let us return directly if a call of the kcalloc() function failed.
>
> * Move assignments for the variables "eof" and "req" behind
> this memory allocation.
Why? Then in the next patch it moves again. It's like cup shuffle to
read these patches sometimes.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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