Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
        Liao Pingfang <liao.pingfang@zte.com.cn>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc:     Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>,
        Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Wang Liang <wang.liang82@zte.com.cn>,
        Xue Zhihong <xue.zhihong@zte.com.cn>,
        Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/nvram: Replace kmalloc with kzalloc in the error message
In-Reply-To: <c3d22d89-9133-30aa-8270-c515df214963@web.de>
References: <c3d22d89-9133-30aa-8270-c515df214963@web.de>
Date:   Tue, 02 Jun 2020 12:57:11 +1000
Message-ID: <87imgai394.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> writes:
>> Please just remove the message instead, it's a tiny allocation that's
>> unlikely to ever fail, and the caller will print an error anyway.
>
> How do you think about to take another look at a previous update suggestion
> like the following?
>
> powerpc/nvram: Delete three error messages for a failed memory allocation
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/00845261-8528-d011-d3b8-e9355a231d3a@users.sourceforge.net/
> https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/00845261-8528-d011-d3b8-e9355a231d3a@users.sourceforge.net/
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/752720/
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/19/537

That deleted the messages from nvram_scan_partitions(), but neither of
the callers of nvram_scan_paritions() check its return value or print
anything if it fails. So removing those messages would make those
failures silent which is not what we want.

cheers