[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97ecfb49-e500-45f4-86bb-769b2d32e91c@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:55:40 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/23] locktorture: Check the correct variable for
allocation failure
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
>
> There is a typo so this checks the wrong variable. "chains" plural vs
> "chain" singular. We already know that "chains" is non-zero.
>
> Fixes: 7f993623e9eb ("locktorture: Add call_rcu_chains module parameter")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
A name change to increase the Hamming distance would of course also be
good, though less urgent. ;-)
> ---
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> index a3abcd136f56..69d3cd2cfc3b 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> @@ -1075,7 +1075,7 @@ static int call_rcu_chain_init(void)
> if (call_rcu_chains <= 0)
> return 0;
> call_rcu_chain = kcalloc(call_rcu_chains, sizeof(*call_rcu_chain), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!call_rcu_chains)
> + if (!call_rcu_chain)
> return -ENOMEM;
> for (i = 0; i < call_rcu_chains; i++) {
> call_rcu_chain[i].crc_stop = false;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists