From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann Droneaud Subject: Re: IB/core: Fine-tuning for ib_is_udata_cleared() Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:46:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1471859215.2764.24.camel@opteya.com> References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <1471802623.3746.1.camel@perches.com> <683187e0-2e6a-88c0-f87a-9c5f0489370a@users.sourceforge.net> <1471809188.3746.18.camel@perches.com> <5e87f691-edb9-0a12-ff7a-59854c2ca2f8@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5e87f691-edb9-0a12-ff7a-59854c2ca2f8@users.sourceforge.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: SF Markus Elfring , Joe Perches Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Doug Ledford , Hal Rosenstock , Sean Hefty , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Hi, Le dimanche 21 août 2016 à 22:15 +0200, SF Markus Elfring a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't introduce a defect in patch 1 and correct > > > > that introduced defect in patch 2. > > > Which detail do you not like here? > > > > See above. > > This feedback is not clearer. > It's clear enough: your second patch fixes an issue you introduced in your first patch by removing the code which made use of the ret initialization value: -       if (copy_from_user(buf, p, len)) -               goto free; > I find that the two update steps should work in principle, > shouldn't they? > It would be better to squash them here. Regards. --  Yann Droneaud OPTEYA