> I don't think anyone has ever hit this bug, so it is a low priority in my
> view. I also noticed that
> if we refactored vq_wait_for_reply that we could combine a common
>
> if (!reply) {
> err = -ENOMEM;
> goto bail;
> }
>
> construct by guaranteeing that reply is non-null if vq_wait_for_reply
> returns without
> an error. This patch, however, is much smaller. What do you think?
Well, now is a good time to merge either version of the fix. Would be
nice to kill off one of the Coverity issues so I'm happy to take this.
It's up to you how much effort you want to spend on this... the
refactoring sounds nice but I think we're OK without it.
- R.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
