Re: [PATCH 23/23] locktorture: Check the correct variable for allocation failure

Paul E. McKenney
2023-10-10T13:55:49Z

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
>
> There is a typo so this checks the wrong variable. "chains" plural vs
> "chain" singular. We already know that "chains" is non-zero.
>
> Fixes: 7f993623e9eb ("locktorture: Add call_rcu_chains module parameter")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>

A name change to increase the Hamming distance would of course also be
good, though less urgent. ;-)

> ---
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> index a3abcd136f56..69d3cd2cfc3b 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> @@ -1075,7 +1075,7 @@ static int call_rcu_chain_init(void)
> if (call_rcu_chains <= 0)
> return 0;
> call_rcu_chain = kcalloc(call_rcu_chains, sizeof(*call_rcu_chain), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!call_rcu_chains)
> + if (!call_rcu_chain)
> return -ENOMEM;
> for (i = 0; i < call_rcu_chains; i++) {
> call_rcu_chain[i].crc_stop = false;
> --
> 2.34.1
>