[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2ca4e9a1.c1e27.1724103291c.Coremail.dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 18:10:25 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: dinghao.liu@....edu.cn
To: "Bean Huo (beanhuo)" <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Cc: "kjlu@....edu" <kjlu@....edu>,
"Alim Akhtar" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
"Avri Altman" <avri.altman@....com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"Bart Van Assche" <bvanassche@....org>,
"Can Guo" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RE: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] scsi: ufs-bsg: Fix runtime PM imbalance
on error
> Hi, Dinghao
>
> > Thank you for your advice! Moving original pm_runtime_put_sync() to after
> > "out" label will influence an error path branched from
> > ups_bsg_verify_query_size(). So I think changing "goto out" to "break" is a good
> > idea. But in this case we may execute an extra
> > sg_copy_from_buffer() and an extra kfree() compared with unpatched version.
> > Does this matter?
> >
> What do you mean " unpatched version "?
>
> I see, below goto will bypass sg_copy_from_buffer() and an extra kfree()
> In case ufs_bsg_alloc_desc_buffer() fails.
>
That's exactly what I want to express. If using "break" is OK I will send
a new patch to fix this problem.
> Bean
>
Regaeds,
Dinghao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists