[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160920070651.GA26808@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:06:52 +0200
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: axboe@...com, tglx@...utronix.de, keith.busch@...el.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] genirq/msi: Add cpumask allocation to
alloc_msi_entry
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:50:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:30:58AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&desc->list);
> > > desc->dev = dev;
> > > + desc->nvec_used = nvec;
(*)
> > > + if (affinity) {
> > > + desc->affinity = kmemdup(affinity,
> > > + nvec * sizeof(*desc->affinity), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!desc->affinity) {
> > > + kfree(desc);
> > > + return NULL;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> >
> > nit - should not "desc" initialization follow "desc->affinity" allocation?
>
> I can't parse that sentence. Do you mean the desc->nvec_used setup?
Yes, the inits above (*) would be useless if desc->affinity allocation failed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists