linux-kernel - Re: drm/i915/gvt: Use common error handling code in shadow_workload_ring

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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.