Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 20:54:23 -0700
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, studentxswpy@163.com,
        chao@kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Hacash Robot <hacashRobot@santino.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] f2fs: Replace kmalloc() with f2fs_kmalloc
Message-ID: <YutC7yUo/mTfty9q@google.com>
References: <20220801092202.3134668-1-studentxswpy@163.com>
 <YugaBtQcoR4XhXiQ@infradead.org>
 <b43b3babb8aea836add289245c640688bec87829.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b43b3babb8aea836add289245c640688bec87829.camel@perches.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 08/01, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-08-01 at 11:23 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:22:02PM +0800, studentxswpy@163.com wrote:
> > > From: Xie Shaowen <studentxswpy@163.com>
> > > 
> > > replace kmalloc with f2fs_kmalloc to keep f2fs code consistency.
> > 
> > For that removing f2fs_kmalloc entirely would be way better.
> 
> Dunno, maybe doubtful as there's a specific "fault injector" test
> built around f2fs_<foo>alloc. (CONFIG_F2FS_FAULT_INJECTION)

Yes, it's very useful to run the test checking the ENOMEM case.

> 
> For a student lesson, it would significantly better to compile any
> patch, especially to avoid broken patches, before submitting them.
>