From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net (009.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65391DD556; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728321387; cv=none; b=AatdbbBCKpB6vPM/kWaJYS/uwXSk2gKzNYEaKLa5QHXRVVZaH7JNQk4GarQpbkZEua/H68m+oXG9S92XZroqjyvA1TEi2qc2TZ8FEpjcBVfFv8OedPEYsBuspYVmJbpXzKoUbSlGiqb4uz7Bqw0LbZT68626x+gTsEJaA/EI2CI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728321387; c=relaxed/simple; bh=C7/n+9dmn2lugRE7XQCnzetT1uNHZROQmL5yAzm+h4k=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=oqIc4CZZOmYH3zsw3aJGLCu3y2ZypEZD3AENdVj3xNiFxHap5raq5osb2bAPgWnGVK3yyP5oKUmOfLvZ6EvIbjtAiALqGl7yqRb4lvnCusftyrUmdqpWQenOwZS1TAlUJrlq8a0ylQ3Cz+kfT5fOu/EgJPe5+C1cO+rzcbjQ1Mo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=GATlrPig; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="GATlrPig" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4XMm5j27MNzlgTWP; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:16:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1728321383; x=1730913384; bh=MS9F57xixI/8zesCw9YF0mvk MymvHl5vF+tYKWcs+Iw=; b=GATlrPigzY7u3td4PHSxnTewBx86UatFzMFGCoyA X5d4CkHGGyTXvZ2atBFQMPzSyi+jc6LzKavOLHQyK5h2UbDOuFRkUkVltn09gzCf 4DXJVSTgqlbw3ZHrrQcUFcCL4CgPVBqivvgobqPkQjjExH8qByTiCt7pFIdZ0jkB DXvxOS1TIfH3XV/cySXn6dr4JtQ1RwCaVqXtWL6vsUx7Qb3wb6wlD9PZTRvXsGjs fZQ5m3Gk09E4528nkcuddkw7YBYR/jFAUwCAgb3Jog5ezOHpWaoHCgfmiRQSs+/E vvXRJTVniGjiQCteg387k1C8Ojy5yJzF+7XnQeizsRePyg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (009.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id g338_l7Evgff; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:16:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.66.154.22] (unknown [104.135.204.82]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4XMm5f6RZzzlgTWK; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:16:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <91a24201-8ab9-45b3-ba1f-26f4fb3f2ecf@acm.org> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 10:16:22 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/srpt: Make slab cache names unique To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Jens Axboe , Zhu Yanjun , Leon Romanovsky , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Shinichiro Kawasaki , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" References: <20241004173730.1932859-1-bvanassche@acm.org> <3108a1da-3eb3-4b9d-8063-eab25c7c2f29@linux.dev> <09ffcd22-8853-4bb3-8471-ef620303174b@acm.org> <09aa620c-b44b-41d2-a207-d2cc477fdad2@kernel.dk> <04daaf4c-9c62-404e-8c5e-1fffb3f2ecbd@acm.org> <20241007165534.GW1365916@nvidia.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20241007165534.GW1365916@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/7/24 9:55 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 09:52:05AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> Do you agree that in this case it is safe not to check whether >> ida_alloc() succeeds? > > It seems like a way to attract static checker bug fix patches :\ Got it. I will add error handling for ida_alloc() failures. Thanks, Bart.