From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:38:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection Message-Id: <20151214123840.GX5284@mwanda> List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <566D7733.1030102@users.sourceforge.net> <566D7952.7090401@users.sourceforge.net> <20151214110003.GV5284@mwanda> <566EB03E.2000007@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <566EB03E.2000007@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Andreas Dilger , Greg Kroah-Hartman , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Oleg Drokin , Julia Lawall , lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 01:04:14PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> 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? > > The positions of their initialisation depends on the selected exception > handling implementation, doesn't it? > > Can you accept the proposed changes around the affected memory allocations? > Just leave it as-is if there is no reason. > > > Then in the next patch it moves again. > > This detail is a matter of patch granularity. > > > > It's like cup shuffle to read these patches sometimes. > > Do you prefer to stash any changes together for a bigger update step? Yes. Patches 5 and 6 would be easier to review if they were folded into one patch. regards, dan carpenter