On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 11:11:03AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 11:15:13PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_os.c b/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_os.c
> > > index 2a00fd3..a7ca479 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_os.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/qla4xxx/ql4_os.c
> > > @@ -6327,17 +6327,15 @@ static int qla4xxx_is_session_exists(struct scsi_qla_host *ha,
> > > uint32_t *index)
> > > {
> > > struct ddb_entry *ddb_entry;
> > > - struct ql4_tuple_ddb *fw_tddb = NULL;
> > > - struct ql4_tuple_ddb *tmp_tddb = NULL;
> > > int idx;
> > > int ret = QLA_ERROR;
> > > + struct ql4_tuple_ddb *tmp_tddb;
> > > + struct ql4_tuple_ddb *fw_tddb = vzalloc(sizeof(*fw_tddb));
> > >
> >
> > Don't do allocations in the initializers. Same for patches 3 and 4 as
> > well.
>
> Why not? I can think of some reasons, but I am wondering what is the
> precise one.
1) People gloss over initializers without reading them. You shouldn't
put complicated code in initializers. Sarah Sharp is more strict on
this than I am. http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg44389.html
2) It means you have to put a line of separation between the allocation
and the NULL check, but they should be next to each other.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
