[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151221234857.GA27079@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:48:57 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in
mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:12:12PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:58:51 +0100
>
> A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function
> even though it was determined that the passed variable "pages" contained
> a null pointer or a call of the alloc_page() function failed.
>
> 1. Let us return directly if a call of the kcalloc() function failed.
>
> 2. Corresponding implementation details could be improved by adjustments
> for jump targets according to the Linux coding style convention.
>
> 3. Delete sanity checks then.
>
> 4. Move an assignment for the variable "eof" behind memory allocations.
>
> 5. The variable "req" will eventually be set to an appropriate pointer
> from a call of the ptlrpc_request_alloc() function.
> Thus let us omit the explicit initialisation before.
>
> 6. Apply a recommendation from the script "checkpatch.pl".
That's 6 different things, shouldn't this be 6 different patches?
please redo.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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