On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 05:22:25PM +0800, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> On 2024/1/17 18:40, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > kasprintf() returns a pointer to dynamically allocated memory
> > > which can be NULL upon failure. Ensure the allocation was successful
> > > by checking the pointer validity.
> > …
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> > > @@ -61,10 +61,14 @@ void xen_smp_intr_free(unsigned int cpu)
> > >
> > > int xen_smp_intr_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > > {
> > > - int rc;
> > > + int rc = 0;
> >
> > I find the indication of a successful function execution sufficient by
> > the statement “return 0;” at the end.
> > How do you think about to omit such an extra variable initialisation?
> Thanks, it's no need now. I'll remove it in v3.
This advice is good. Don't do unnecessary assignments.
> >
> >
> > > char *resched_name, *callfunc_name, *debug_name;
> > >
> > > resched_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "resched%d", cpu);
> > > + if (!resched_name) {
> > > + rc = -ENOMEM;
> > > + goto fail;
> > > + }
> > > per_cpu(xen_resched_irq, cpu).name = resched_name;
> > > rc = bind_ipi_to_irqhandler(XEN_RESCHEDULE_VECTOR,
> > > cpu,
> >
> > You propose to apply the same error code in four if branches.
> > I suggest to avoid the specification of duplicate assignment statements
> > for this purpose.
> > How do you think about to use another label like “e_nomem”?
> I'll add a new label to simply the code.
I'm not a Xen maintainer so I can't really comment on their style
choices. However, as one of the kernel-janitors list people, I would
say that not everyone agrees with Markus's style preferences. Markus
was banned from the list for a while, but we unbanned everyone when we
transitioned to the new list infrastructure. Do a search on lore to
find out more. https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=Elfring
Perhaps wait for feedback from the maintainers for how to proceed?
regards,
dan carpenter
