Re: [PATCH 2/2] block-rbd: One function call less in rbd_dev_probe_parent() after error detection

2015-11-25 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 09:21:06PM +0100, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > >> Cleanup here is (and should be) done in reverse order. > > Yes. This is true. > > I have got an other impression about the appropriate order for the > > corresponding > > clean-up function calls. > > > > > >> We allocate parent

Re: [PATCH 2/2] block-rbd: One function call less in rbd_dev_probe_parent() after error detection

2015-11-25 Thread Ilya Dryomov
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 09:21:06PM +0100, Ilya Dryomov wrote: >> >> Cleanup here is (and should be) done in reverse order. >> > > > Yes. This is true. > >> > I have got an other impression about the appropriate

Re: [PATCH 2/2] block-rbd: One function call less in rbd_dev_probe_parent() after error detection

2015-11-24 Thread SF Markus Elfring
>> @@ -5157,14 +5157,14 @@ static int rbd_dev_probe_parent(struct rbd_device >> *rbd_dev, int depth) >> if (++depth > RBD_MAX_PARENT_CHAIN_LEN) { >> pr_info("parent chain is too long (%d)\n", depth); >> ret = -EINVAL; >> - goto out_err; >> +