From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:00:03 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection
Message-Id: <20151214110003.GV5284@mwanda>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <566D7733.1030102@users.sourceforge.net>
 <566D7952.7090401@users.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <566D7952.7090401@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>, lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 02:57:38PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:21:17 +0100
> 
> A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function
> even if it is known already that the passed variable "pages" contained
> a null pointer.
> 
> * Let us return directly if a call of the kcalloc() function failed.
> 
> * Move assignments for the variables "eof" and "req" behind
>   this memory allocation.

Why?  Then in the next patch it moves again.  It's like cup shuffle to
read these patches sometimes.

regards,
dan carpenter