[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180326095712.GA214483@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:57:12 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] zram: idle memory tracking
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:15:11AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:49:51PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > +static int zram_debugfs_register(struct zram *zram)
> > +{
> > + struct dentry *ret;
> > +
> > + if (!zram_debugfs_root)
> > + return -ENOENT;
>
> No need to care, you should not error out if debugfs is not enabled or
> not working, your code path should be identical either way. debugfs is
> not required for any functionality, so don't treat it like it matters :)
Glad to hear. It makes code much clean.
>
> > + zram->debugfs_dir = debugfs_create_dir(zram->disk->disk_name,
> > + zram_debugfs_root);
> > + if (!zram->debugfs_dir)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> No need to check the return value of any debugfs call, you can always
> either use it for future debugfs calls, or ignore it.
>
> > + ret = debugfs_create_file("access_time", 0400, zram->debugfs_dir,
> > + zram, &proc_zram_access_operations);
> > + if (!ret)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> Again, you shouldn't care :)
>
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> just return void, no need to test any of this.
Thanks for the quick review, Greg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists