Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754007AbdF0Xho (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2017 19:37:44 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]:36599 "EHLO mail-lf0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753939AbdF0Xhj (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2017 19:37:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <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> <20170627181049.phlrtpkf3mqi4kt6@pd.tnic> From: Wei Yang Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 07:37:16 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] x86/numa_emulation: fix potential memory leak To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Tejun Heo , David Rientjes , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1531 Lines: 41 On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > 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. > I didn't dig into the reason for when this could happen. After some investigation, it looks will not happen after split_nodes_xxx() works fine. In function split_nodes_xxx(), if it doesn't return an error code it will set the emu_nid_to_phys[]. Which in turns be assigned to dfl_phys_nid. So I suggest to remove the error branch. >> 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. > Ok, will do this. > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.