On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:50:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 09:30:58AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&desc->list);
> > > > desc->dev = dev;
> > > > + desc->nvec_used = nvec;
>
> (*)
>
> > > > + if (affinity) {
> > > > + desc->affinity = kmemdup(affinity,
> > > > + nvec * sizeof(*desc->affinity), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!desc->affinity) {
> > > > + kfree(desc);
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > nit - should not "desc" initialization follow "desc->affinity" allocation?
> >
> > I can't parse that sentence. Do you mean the desc->nvec_used setup?
>
> Yes, the inits above (*) would be useless if desc->affinity allocation failed.
And that matters how?
Thanks,
tglx
