[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1508856148.1955.12.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:42:28 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Garry Hurley <garry.hurley.jr@...il.com>
Cc: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: drm/i915/gvt: Use common error handling code in
shadow_workload_ring_buffer()
On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 17:26 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The point of unwind code is to undo what was done earlier. If a
> function allocates a list of things, using standard unwind style makes
> it simpler, safer and more readable.
>
> This isn't the case here. Instead of making the code more readable,
> we're making it more convoluted. It's just that two out of three error
> messages happened to be the same and Markus wants to save a bit of
> memory by using the same string. The memory savings is not so big that
> it's worth making the code less readable.
I agree with Dan.
It doesn't save any real memory either as the compiler/linker
reuses the repeated string.
It might, depending on the compiler, save a few bytes of
object code as the compiler may not optimize the repeated
call away though. But a good compiler could do that too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists