Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932300AbbLNMjM (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:39:12 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:19869 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932241AbbLNMjK (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:39:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:38:40 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Andreas Dilger , Greg Kroah-Hartman , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Oleg Drokin , Julia Lawall , lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection Message-ID: <20151214123840.GX5284@mwanda> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <566D7733.1030102@users.sourceforge.net> <566D7952.7090401@users.sourceforge.net> <20151214110003.GV5284@mwanda> <566EB03E.2000007@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <566EB03E.2000007@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1275 Lines: 41 On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 01:04:14PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function > >> even if it is known already that the passed variable "pages" contained > >> a null pointer. > >> > >> * Let us return directly if a call of the kcalloc() function failed. > >> > >> * Move assignments for the variables "eof" and "req" behind > >> this memory allocation. > > > > Why? > > The positions of their initialisation depends on the selected exception > handling implementation, doesn't it? > > Can you accept the proposed changes around the affected memory allocations? > Just leave it as-is if there is no reason. > > > Then in the next patch it moves again. > > This detail is a matter of patch granularity. > > > > It's like cup shuffle to read these patches sometimes. > > Do you prefer to stash any changes together for a bigger update step? Yes. Patches 5 and 6 would be easier to review if they were folded into one patch. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/