On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:15:12AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > … The patch fixes this issue by
> > calling rvt_free_rq().
>
> I suggest to choose another imperative wording for your change description.
> Will the tag “Fixes” become helpful for the commit message?
>
> …
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c
> > @@ -1203,6 +1203,7 @@ struct ib_qp *rvt_create_qp(struct ib_pd *ibpd,
> > qp->s_flags = RVT_S_SIGNAL_REQ_WR;
> > err = alloc_ud_wq_attr(qp, rdi->dparms.node);
> > if (err) {
> > + rvt_free_rq(&qp->r_rq);
> > ret = (ERR_PTR(err));
> > goto bail_driver_priv;
> > }
>
> How do you think about the following code variant with the addition
> of a jump target?
>
> err = alloc_ud_wq_attr(qp, rdi->dparms.node);
> if (err) {
> ret = (ERR_PTR(err));
> - goto bail_driver_priv;
> + goto bail_free_rq;
> }
>
> …
>
> bail_rq_wq:
> - rvt_free_rq(&qp->r_rq);
> free_ud_wq_attr(qp);
> +
> +bail_free_rq:
> + rvt_free_rq(&qp->r_rq);
>
> bail_driver_priv:
>
>
> Regards,
> Markus
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
