[lustre-devel] [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fid: Use !x to check for kzalloc failure

[lustre-devel] [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fid: Use !x to check for kzalloc failure

[Simmons, James A.]

Is this change a hard requirement? Currently the lustre code standard in our development tree is the opposite policy.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:

[HPDD-discuss] [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fid: Use !x to check for kzalloc failure

Date:

Sat, 20 Jun 2015 18:58:59 +0200

From:

Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr><mailto:Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>

To:

Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com><mailto:oleg.drokin@intel.com>

CC:

<devel@driverdev.osuosl.org><mailto:devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org><mailto:gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org><mailto:kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org><mailto:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org><mailto:HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org>



!x is more normal for kzalloc failure in the kernel.



The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)



// <smpl>

@@

expression x;

statement S1, S2;

@@



x = kzalloc(...);

if (

- x == NULL

+ !x

 ) S1 else S2

// </smpl>



Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr><mailto:Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>



---

 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/fid_request.c |    4 ++--

 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)



diff -u -p a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/fid_request.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/fid_request.c

--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/fid_request.c

+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/fid/fid_request.c

@@ -498,11 +498,11 @@ int client_fid_init(struct obd_device *o

        int rc;



        cli->cl_seq = kzalloc(sizeof(*cli->cl_seq), GFP_NOFS);

-       if (cli->cl_seq == NULL)

+       if (!cli->cl_seq)

               return -ENOMEM;



        prefix = kzalloc(MAX_OBD_NAME + 5, GFP_NOFS);

-       if (prefix == NULL) {

+       if (!prefix) {

               rc = -ENOMEM;

               goto out_free_seq;

        }



_______________________________________________

HPDD-discuss mailing list

HPDD-discuss at lists.01.org<mailto:HPDD-discuss@lists.01.org>

https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-lustre.org/attachments/20150622/e9b7f1db/attachment-0001.htm>

Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fid: Use !x to check for kzalloc failure

[Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org)]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:27:03PM +0000, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> 
> Is this change a hard requirement? Currently the lustre code standard in our development tree is the opposite policy.

Please follow the kernel coding style rules.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in

Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fid: Use !x to check for kzalloc failure

[Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org)]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:27:03PM +0000, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> 
> Is this change a hard requirement? Currently the lustre code standard in our development tree is the opposite policy.

Please follow the kernel coding style rules.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[lustre-devel] [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fid: Use !x to check for kzalloc failure

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:27:03PM +0000, Simmons, James A. wrote:
> 
> Is this change a hard requirement? Currently the lustre code standard in our development tree is the opposite policy.

Please follow the kernel coding style rules.