Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 20:10:49 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Cc: kirill@shutemov.name, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, tj@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] x86/numa_emulation: fix potential memory leak
Message-ID: <20170627181049.phlrtpkf3mqi4kt6@pd.tnic>
References: <20170502130453.5933-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
 <20170502130453.5933-2-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
 <20170626153149.b2x5pcipzuzaguuw@pd.tnic>
 <20170626231127.GA53180@WeideMacBook-Pro.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170626231127.GA53180@WeideMacBook-Pro.local>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1067
Lines: 28

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:11:27AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> It means numa emulation is not properly configured.

Or what the error message says: it cannot determine the default physical
node because NUMA emulation is not properly configured. What I'm trying
to say, is, explain the *why* in the commit message, not the *what*. The
*what* one can see in the code.

> Well, to this particular piece, have a for loop within a function doesn't look
> like a big deal to me. So you prefer to take every for loop in this function
> out?

As I said, I'd prefer you take this loop out and turn it into a separate
function in one go, along with fixing the potential memory leak.

> Last but not the least, these are two issues:
> 
> The problem this patch wants to address is the memory leak, while the concern
> here you mentioned is the coding style.

Let's not get too pedantic here: if you carve it out in a separate
function, it is still clear what the patch is doing.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.