On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:50:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:30:58AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > >         INIT_LIST_HEAD(&desc->list);
> > > >         desc->dev = dev;
> > > > +       desc->nvec_used = nvec;
> 
> (*)
> 
> > > > +       if (affinity) {
> > > > +               desc->affinity = kmemdup(affinity,
> > > > +                       nvec * sizeof(*desc->affinity), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > +               if (!desc->affinity) {
> > > > +                       kfree(desc);
> > > > +                       return NULL;
> > > > +               }
> > > > +       }
> > > 
> > > nit - should not "desc" initialization follow "desc->affinity" allocation?
> > 
> > I can't parse that sentence.  Do you mean the desc->nvec_used setup?
> 
> Yes, the inits above (*) would be useless if desc->affinity allocation failed.

And that matters how?

Thanks,

        tglx
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to