From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: block-rbd: One function call less in rbd_dev_probe_parent() after
 error detection
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:34:58 +0100
Message-ID: <5654C9F2.20409@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402231635510.1985@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402240658210.2090@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402241710370.2074@hadrien>
 <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402251014170.2080@hadrien>
 <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402251840450.7035@hadrien>
 <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402252117150.2047@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402262129250.2221@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <56536BAD.4000309@users.sourceforge.net>
 <56536D12.4000308@users.sourceforge.net>
 <CAOi1vP_t6-vw-sesRwpgfbqLVRyevOP4uvhbj05b3PPg=oHD6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5654B91D.4040808@users.sourceforge.net>
 <CAOi1vP-Z2yfJVcpqZN8EOf6rYsd41ixOOQWVva_xkKmA6PLrhg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1vP-Z2yfJVcpqZN8EOf6rYsd41ixOOQWVva_xkKmA6PLrhg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>, Sage Weil <sage@redhat.com>, Ceph Development <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
List-Id: ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org

> Well, there isn't any _literal_ linking (e.g. adding to a link list,
> etc) in this case.  We just bump some refs and do probe to fill in the
> newly allocated parent.

Thanks for your clarification.


> The actual linking (rbd_dev->parent = parent) is done right before
> returning so we never have to undo it in rbd_dev_probe_parent() and
> that's the only reason your patch probably doesn't break anything.

Is this function implementation just also affected by an issue
which is mentioned in the Linux document "CodingStyle" as "one err bugs"?


> Think about what happens if, after your patch is applied, someone moves
> that assignment up or adds an extra step that can fail after it...

Is such a software maintenance concern really enough to delay (or reject)
my second update suggestion in this small patch series?

Regards,
Markus