On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 02:57:38PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:21:17 +0100 > > A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function > even if it is known already that the passed variable "pages" contained > a null pointer. > > * Let us return directly if a call of the kcalloc() function failed. > > * Move assignments for the variables "eof" and "req" behind > this memory allocation. Why? Then in the next patch it moves again. It's like cup shuffle to read these patches sometimes. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
