[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170627181049.phlrtpkf3mqi4kt6@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 20:10:49 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc: kirill@...temov.name, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, tj@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] x86/numa_emulation: fix potential memory leak
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:11:27AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> It means numa emulation is not properly configured.
Or what the error message says: it cannot determine the default physical
node because NUMA emulation is not properly configured. What I'm trying
to say, is, explain the *why* in the commit message, not the *what*. The
*what* one can see in the code.
> Well, to this particular piece, have a for loop within a function doesn't look
> like a big deal to me. So you prefer to take every for loop in this function
> out?
As I said, I'd prefer you take this loop out and turn it into a separate
function in one go, along with fixing the potential memory leak.
> Last but not the least, these are two issues:
>
> The problem this patch wants to address is the memory leak, while the concern
> here you mentioned is the coding style.
Let's not get too pedantic here: if you carve it out in a separate
function, it is still clear what the patch is doing.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists