Re: staging: lustre: Optimize error handling in class_register_type()

2016-07-26 Thread SF Markus Elfring
> NAK.
> when you do this, the next statement below breaks:

I wonder about this conclusion.


>>  type = kzalloc(sizeof(*type), GFP_NOFS);
>>  if (!type)
>> -return rc;
>> +return -ENOMEM;
>>
>>  type->typ_dt_ops = kzalloc(sizeof(*type->typ_dt_ops), GFP_NOFS);
>>  if (!type->typ_dt_ops) {
> …
> goto failed;
> 
>  failed:
> …
> return rc;
> 
> So we are now returning an unitialized rc, did you get a gcc warning about it 
> when compiling?

I do not get such an impression if my corresponding update suggestion
"[PATCH 04/12] staging: lustre: Split a condition check in 
class_register_type()"
will be considered for this use case once more.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/26/462
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1197227.html

Regards,
Markus


Re: staging: lustre: Optimize error handling in class_register_type()

2016-07-26 Thread SF Markus Elfring
> NAK.
> when you do this, the next statement below breaks:

I wonder about this conclusion.


>>  type = kzalloc(sizeof(*type), GFP_NOFS);
>>  if (!type)
>> -return rc;
>> +return -ENOMEM;
>>
>>  type->typ_dt_ops = kzalloc(sizeof(*type->typ_dt_ops), GFP_NOFS);
>>  if (!type->typ_dt_ops) {
> …
> goto failed;
> 
>  failed:
> …
> return rc;
> 
> So we are now returning an unitialized rc, did you get a gcc warning about it 
> when compiling?

I do not get such an impression if my corresponding update suggestion
"[PATCH 04/12] staging: lustre: Split a condition check in 
class_register_type()"
will be considered for this use case once more.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/26/462
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1197227.html

Regards,
Markus