[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <566EB03E.2000007@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:04:14 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
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
>> 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?
The positions of their initialisation depends on the selected exception
handling implementation, doesn't it?
Can you accept the proposed changes around the affected memory allocations?
> Then in the next patch it moves again.
This detail is a matter of patch granularity.
> It's like cup shuffle to read these patches sometimes.
Do you prefer to stash any changes together for a bigger update step?
Regards,
Markus
--
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