On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:27:58AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > Hello, > > I have taken another look at pointer usage after calls of the function “brelse”. > My source code analysis approach pointed implementation details > like the following out for further software development considerations. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/fs/exfat/namei.c?id=3d155ae4358baf4831609c2f9cd09396a2b8badf#n1078 > > … > epold = exfat_get_dentry(sb, p_dir, oldentry + 1, &old_bh, > §or_old); > epnew = exfat_get_dentry(sb, p_dir, newentry + 1, &new_bh, > §or_new); > if (!epold || !epnew) > return -EIO; > … > > I suggest to split such an error check. > How do you think about to release a buffer head object for the desired > exception handling if one of these function calls succeeded? > > Would you like to adjust such code in the functions “exfat_rename_file” > and “exfat_move_file”? > > Regards, > Markus Hi, This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time. Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails from them. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
