Le 07/08/2017 à 10:25, walter harms a écrit :


Am 07.08.2017 00:51, schrieb Christophe JAILLET:
In the lines above this test, 8 'kzalloc' are performed, but only 7 results
are tested.

Add the missing one (i.e. '!ioc->port_enable_cmds.reply').

Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr>
---
  drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c | 8 ++++----
  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c 
b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c
index 1a5b6e40fb5c..8a44636ab0b5 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c
@@ -5494,10 +5494,10 @@ mpt3sas_base_attach(struct MPT3SAS_ADAPTER *ioc)
        ioc->ctl_cmds.status = MPT3_CMD_NOT_USED;
        mutex_init(&ioc->ctl_cmds.mutex);
- if (!ioc->base_cmds.reply || !ioc->transport_cmds.reply ||
-           !ioc->scsih_cmds.reply || !ioc->tm_cmds.reply ||
-           !ioc->config_cmds.reply || !ioc->ctl_cmds.reply ||
-           !ioc->ctl_cmds.sense) {
+       if (!ioc->base_cmds.reply || !ioc->port_enable_cmds.reply ||
+           !ioc->transport_cmds.reply || !ioc->scsih_cmds.reply ||
+           !ioc->tm_cmds.reply || !ioc->config_cmds.reply ||
+           !ioc->ctl_cmds.reply || !ioc->ctl_cmds.sense) {
                r = -ENOMEM;
                goto out_free_resources;
        }

obviously it is better to follow the pattern "malloc() , check".
Agreed, but it is also more verbose. Leavig it as-is, is IMHO, good enough.

Even the programmer lost track.

Bonus points if you malloc the buffers in one step.
Most of the allocation are 'kzalloc(ioc->reply_sz, GFP_KERNEL);', so a kcalloc could be used instead. However, the 'kzalloc(SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE, GFP_KERNEL);' breaks this logic and allocating all at once would lead to spaghetti code for no reason.

Moreover, I don't have any idea how big can be 'ioc->reply_sz', even if I guess it should be small.
So allocating all at once, could fail where several steps would work.

So I won't play for the bonus points :).

Best regards.
CJ

just my 2 cents,

re,
  wh




Reply via email to