linux-kernel - Re: staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover

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: <566EB9D7.9090904@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:45:11 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org
Subject: Re: staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after
 error detection

>> Can you accept the proposed changes around the affected memory allocations?
> 
> Just leave it as-is if there is no reason.

I suggest to make the implementation of the function "mgc_process_recover_log"
a bit more efficient.


>> Do you prefer to stash any changes together for a bigger update step?
> 
> Yes.  Patches 5 and 6 would be easier to review if they were folded into
> one patch.

I do not like patch squashing for my update suggestions here.

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/