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
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
>> @@ -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;
>> +