Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Remove error messages for failed memory allocations

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Remove error messages for failed memory allocations

[Markus Elfring]

> As there is a dump_stack() done on memory allocation
> failures, these messages might as well be deleted instead.

* I imagine that an other wording variant can become clearer
  for the change description.

* I suggest to reconsider the patch subject.


…
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> @@ -632,7 +632,6 @@  static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state,
>
>  	selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS);
>  	if (NULL == selected_super) {
> -		pr_info("btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n");
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	}


How do you think about to use the following error handling instead?

	if (!selected_super)
		return -ENOMEM;


Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Remove error messages for failed memory allocations

[Markus Elfring]

> As there is a dump_stack() done on memory allocation
> failures, these messages might as well be deleted instead.

* I imagine that an other wording variant can become clearer
  for the change description.

* I suggest to reconsider the patch subject.


…
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> @@ -632,7 +632,6 @@  static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state,
>
>  	selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS);
>  	if (NULL == selected_super) {
> -		pr_info("btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n");
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	}


How do you think about to use the following error handling instead?

	if (!selected_super)
		return -ENOMEM;


Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: Remove error messages for failed memory allocations

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 04:00:21PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > As there is a dump_stack() done on memory allocation
> > failures, these messages might as well be deleted instead.
> 
> * I imagine that an other wording variant can become clearer
>   for the change description.
> 
> * I suggest to reconsider the patch subject.
> 
> 
> …
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> > @@ -632,7 +632,6 @@  static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state,
> >
> >  	selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS);
> >  	if (NULL = selected_super) {
> > -		pr_info("btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n");
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  	}
> 
> 
> How do you think about to use the following error handling instead?
> 
> 	if (!selected_super)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 


Hi,

This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.

Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list.  I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore.  Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.

Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all.  The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback.  Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot