linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/16] mm/migration: remove unneeded out label

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:   Mon, 07 Mar 2022 10:03:09 +0800
From:   "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Cc:     <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        <shy828301@...il.com>, <willy@...radead.org>, <ziy@...dia.com>,
        <minchan@...nel.org>, <apopple@...dia.com>,
        <ave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <o451686892@...il.com>,
        <almasrymina@...gle.com>, <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        <rcampbell@...dia.com>, <peterx@...hat.com>,
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>, <mhocko@...e.com>, <riel@...hat.com>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] mm/migration: remove unneeded out label

Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> writes:

> We can do prep_transhuge_page when newpage is not NULL. Thus we can remove
> out label to simplify the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
> ---
>  mm/migrate.c | 7 ++-----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> index 50bc62d85eaf..bc1867a5706c 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> @@ -2025,12 +2025,9 @@ static struct page *alloc_misplaced_dst_page_thp(struct page *page,
>  
>  	newpage = alloc_pages_node(nid, (GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT | __GFP_THISNODE),
>  				   HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
> -	if (!newpage)
> -		goto out;
> +	if (newpage)
> +		prep_transhuge_page(newpage);
>  
> -	prep_transhuge_page(newpage);
> -
> -out:
>  	return newpage;
>  }

I don't think this change is necessary.  The original code is simple and
follows the common practice for error processing.  The new code is OK,
but it's unnecessary to change.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying