From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753587AbdBHQPm (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:15:42 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0091.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.91]:54268 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751921AbdBHQPX (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:15:23 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:968:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2198:2199:2393:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3167:3350:3622:3865:3867:3868:3871:3872:4250:4321:5007:10004:10400:10848:11026:11232:11473:11658:11914:12296:12679:12740:12760:12895:13069:13076:13161:13229:13311:13357:13439:14659:14721:21080:21451:30054:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:4,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: steel32_896fb6de88701 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1380 Message-ID: <1486569942.27834.15.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] xenbus: Neaten xenbus_va_dev_error From: Joe Perches To: Boris Ostrovsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Juergen Gross , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:05:42 -0800 In-Reply-To: <595b1e96-3bec-aaa5-e548-b40dd1265fae@oracle.com> References: <595b1e96-3bec-aaa5-e548-b40dd1265fae@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.3-0ubuntu0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 10:33 -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 02/08/2017 06:33 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > This function error patch can be simplified, so do so. > > > > Remove fail: label and somewhat obfuscating, used once "error_path" > > function. btw: I left it alone, but likely #define PRINTF_BUFFER_SIZE 4096 is probably excessive as the maximum printk buffer is 1024. The xenbus_write might be longer though so maybe it's OK to use 4096, but there is some inequivalence there.