Subject: Re: staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after
 error detection
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <566D7733.1030102@users.sourceforge.net>
 <566D7952.7090401@users.sourceforge.net> <20151214110003.GV5284@mwanda>
 <566EB03E.2000007@users.sourceforge.net> <20151214123840.GX5284@mwanda>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>, lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <566EB9D7.9090904@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:45:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151214123840.GX5284@mwanda>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 720
Lines: 22

>> Can you accept the proposed changes around the affected memory allocations?
> 
> Just leave it as-is if there is no reason.

I suggest to make the implementation of the function "mgc_process_recover_log"
a bit more efficient.


>> 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.

I do not like patch squashing for my update suggestions here.

Regards,
Markus
--
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/