Re: [PATCH] RDMA/rvt: Improve exception handling in rvt_create_qp()

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:15:12AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > … The patch fixes this issue by
> > calling rvt_free_rq().
> 
> I suggest to choose another imperative wording for your change description.
> Will the tag “Fixes” become helpful for the commit message?
> 
> …
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c
> > @@ -1203,6 +1203,7 @@  struct ib_qp *rvt_create_qp(struct ib_pd *ibpd,
> >  			qp->s_flags = RVT_S_SIGNAL_REQ_WR;
> >  		err = alloc_ud_wq_attr(qp, rdi->dparms.node);
> >  		if (err) {
> > +			rvt_free_rq(&qp->r_rq);
> >  			ret = (ERR_PTR(err));
> >  			goto bail_driver_priv;
> >  		}
> 
> How do you think about the following code variant with the addition
> of a jump target?
> 
>  		err = alloc_ud_wq_attr(qp, rdi->dparms.node);
>  		if (err) {
>  			ret = (ERR_PTR(err));
> -			goto bail_driver_priv;
> +			goto bail_free_rq;
>  		}
> 
> …
> 
>  bail_rq_wq:
> -	rvt_free_rq(&qp->r_rq);
>  	free_ud_wq_attr(qp);
> +
> +bail_free_rq:
> +	rvt_free_rq(&qp->r_rq);
> 
>  bail_driver_priv:
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Markus

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