On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 01:03:51AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:47 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:31:42AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > > > > @@ -189,10 +192,9 @@ static int kpc_dma_transfer(struct dev_private_data *priv, > > > > > sg_free_table(&acd->sgt); > > > > > err_dma_map_sg: > > > > > err_alloc_sg_table: > > > > > > > > So now we end up with two unnecessary labels. Probably best to delete two of these > > > > three and name the remaining one appropriately: > > > > > > Hmm, I thought about it. But later decided to wait for review comments > > > on the same in v1. > > > I will remove it now. > > > > These are all unrelated to pin_user_pages(). Please don't do it in the > > same patch. Staging code is there because it's ugly... If you don't > > want to do unrelated changes to label names then you don't have to. > > What I am planning is to put this changes in a series. One patch will take care > of pin_user_pages() related changes, 2nd patch will take care of minor bug > fix in error path + level correction and 3rd patch > will take care of set_page_dirty() -> set_page_dirty_lock(). Always do bug fixes first. Always do the easiest least controversial after first. Do the error handling bug first. Change "rv" to int. That's closely related to the error handling. Then set_page_dirty_lock(). Then the conversion to pin_user_pages(). Then if you want you can do any unrelated clean ups and error label renames as patch 4. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
