[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc60c33e-c268-4e7e-94f9-e573545ffe98@web.de>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 19:29:28 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Matthew Sakai <msakai@...hat.com>, "J. corwin Coburn"
<corwin@...lbutnet.net>, Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@...miny.me>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dm vdo slab-depot: delete unnecessary check
> This is a duplicate check
Was this implementation detail detected with any known source code analysis tool?
> so it can't be true. …
I suggest to reconsider this information a bit more.
Would you usually expect the outcome “result == VDO_SUCCESS” from a call
of the function “uds_allocate”?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists