Re: [PATCH RFC] iw_cxgb4: drop check - dead code

2019-01-23 Thread Nicholas Mc Guire
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:45:11PM -0600, Steve Wise wrote: > > > On 1/23/2019 12:30 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 02:27:13AM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > >> The kmalloc is called with | __GFP_NOFAIL so there is no point in > >> checking the return value - it

Re: [PATCH RFC] iw_cxgb4: drop check - dead code

2019-01-23 Thread Steve Wise
On 1/23/2019 3:44 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 02:27:13AM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: >> The kmalloc is called with | __GFP_NOFAIL so there is no point in >> checking the return value - it either returns valid storage or it would >> hang/terminate there. But it is

Re: [PATCH RFC] iw_cxgb4: drop check - dead code

2019-01-23 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 02:27:13AM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > The kmalloc is called with | __GFP_NOFAIL so there is no point in > checking the return value - it either returns valid storage or it would > hang/terminate there. But it is not possible to say if the use of > __GFP_NOFAIL is

Re: [PATCH RFC] iw_cxgb4: drop check - dead code

2019-01-23 Thread Steve Wise
On 1/23/2019 12:30 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 02:27:13AM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: >> The kmalloc is called with | __GFP_NOFAIL so there is no point in >> checking the return value - it either returns valid storage or it would >> hang/terminate there. But it is

Re: [PATCH RFC] iw_cxgb4: drop check - dead code

2019-01-23 Thread Steve Wise
On 1/23/2019 12:30 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 02:27:13AM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: >> The kmalloc is called with | __GFP_NOFAIL so there is no point in >> checking the return value - it either returns valid storage or it would >> hang/terminate there. But it is

Re: [PATCH RFC] iw_cxgb4: drop check - dead code

2019-01-23 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 02:27:13AM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > The kmalloc is called with | __GFP_NOFAIL so there is no point in > checking the return value - it either returns valid storage or it would > hang/terminate there. But it is not possible to say if the use of > __GFP_NOFAIL is

Re: [PATCH RFC] iw_cxgb4: drop check - dead code

2019-01-20 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 02:27:13AM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > Q:This also has an interesting dependency with no effect: > Depends on:... (INFINIBAND_USER_ACCESS [=n] || !INFINIBAND_USER_ACCESS [=n]) > I assume htat INFINIBAND_USER_ACCESS=y should be required here ? This has the effect

[PATCH RFC] iw_cxgb4: drop check - dead code

2019-01-19 Thread Nicholas Mc Guire
The kmalloc is called with | __GFP_NOFAIL so there is no point in checking the return value - it either returns valid storage or it would hang/terminate there. But it is not possible to say if the use of __GFP_NOFAIL is really needed and the check should be removed or vice-versa (use of