From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932300AbbLNMjM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:39:12 -0500
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:19869 "EHLO
	userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932241AbbLNMjK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:39:10 -0500
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:38:40 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>, lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] staging: lustre: Less checks in
 mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection
Message-ID: <20151214123840.GX5284@mwanda>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <566D7733.1030102@users.sourceforge.net>
 <566D7952.7090401@users.sourceforge.net>
 <20151214110003.GV5284@mwanda>
 <566EB03E.2000007@users.sourceforge.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <566EB03E.2000007@users.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 01:04:14PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function
> >> even if it is known already that the passed variable "pages" contained
> >> a null pointer.
> >>
> >> * Let us return directly if a call of the kcalloc() function failed.
> >>
> >> * Move assignments for the variables "eof" and "req" behind
> >>   this memory allocation.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> The positions of their initialisation depends on the selected exception 
> handling implementation, doesn't it?
> 
> Can you accept the proposed changes around the affected memory allocations?
> 

Just leave it as-is if there is no reason.

> 
> > Then in the next patch it moves again.
> 
> This detail is a matter of patch granularity.
> 
> 
> > It's like cup shuffle to read these patches sometimes.
> 
> Do you prefer to stash any changes together for a bigger update step?

Yes.  Patches 5 and 6 would be easier to review if they were folded into
one patch.

regards,
dan carpenter