On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 01:04:14PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> 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? > Just leave it as-is if there is no reason. > > > 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? Yes. Patches 5 and 6 would be easier to review if they were folded into one patch. 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
