[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <01d581bb-9db6-cba1-e476-49c814c3ebf0@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:08:12 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Christian Bornträger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KVM: s390: Move two error code assignments in
kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log()
> Patches that changes open coded things to common helpers or things like
> kmalloc_array where appropriate or things that make the code more robust
> are fine and welcome, but I am not going to take this as it just shuffles
> things around.
Thanks for such information.
> It does not fix anything and it does not improve the code,
I have got an other expectation for the shown implementation detail.
> but it certainly carries the risk of breaking something
This is usual in software development, isn't it?
> (yes in this case it looks perfectly fine, though).
Thanks for this bit of positive feedback.
> Due to the locking requirements we cannot do such a simplification here.
I find this detail strange. Would you like to check run time consequences
for the shown error code settings once more?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists