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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:19:43 +0200 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> Cc: Liao Pingfang <liao.pingfang@....com.cn>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <clm@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, Wang Liang <wang.liang82@....com.cn>, Xue Zhihong <xue.zhihong@....com.cn>, Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Remove error messages for failed memory allocations On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 04:00:21PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > As there is a dump_stack() done on memory allocation > > failures, these messages might as well be deleted instead. > > * I imagine that an other wording variant can become clearer > for the change description. > > * I suggest to reconsider the patch subject. > > > … > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c > > @@ -632,7 +632,6 @@ static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state, > > > > selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS); > > if (NULL == selected_super) { > > - pr_info("btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n"); > > return -ENOMEM; > > } > > > How do you think about to use the following error handling instead? > > if (!selected_super) > return -ENOMEM; > Hi, This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time. Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails from them. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
Powered by blists - more mailing lists