>> 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? The positions of their initialisation depends on the selected exception handling implementation, doesn't it? Can you accept the proposed changes around the affected memory allocations? > Then in the next patch it moves again. This detail is a matter of patch granularity. > It's like cup shuffle to read these patches sometimes. Do you prefer to stash any changes together for a bigger update step? Regards, Markus -- 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
