On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 04:00:21PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > As there is a dump_stack() done on memory allocation
> > failures, these messages might as well be deleted instead.
>
> * I imagine that an other wording variant can become clearer
> for the change description.
>
> * I suggest to reconsider the patch subject.
>
>
> …
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
> > @@ -632,7 +632,6 @@ static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state,
> >
> > selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS);
> > if (NULL == selected_super) {
> > - pr_info("btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n");
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > }
>
>
> How do you think about to use the following error handling instead?
>
> if (!selected_super)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
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
