piaojun wrote on Fri, Aug 10, 2018:
> Could you help paste the test result of before-after-applied this patch in
> comment? And please see my comments below.
Thanks the the review, do you mean the commit message?
I'll add the summary I wrote in reply to your question a few mails
before.
> > diff --git a/include/net/9p/9p.h b/include/net/9p/9p.h
> > index e23896116d9a..645266b74652 100644
> > --- a/include/net/9p/9p.h
> > +++ b/include/net/9p/9p.h
> > @@ -336,6 +336,9 @@ enum p9_qid_t {
> > #define P9_NOFID (u32)(~0)
> > #define P9_MAXWELEM 16
> >
> > +/* Minimal header size: len + id + tag */
>
> Here should be 'size + id + tag'.
hm I didn't want to repeat size, but I guess people do refer to that
field as size.
I'll actually rewrite it as:
Minimal header size: size[4] type[1] tag[2]
> > + kmem_cache_destroy(clnt->fcall_cache);
>
> I'm afraid that we should check NULL for clnt->fcall_cache.
kmem_cache_destroy() in mm/slab_common.c does the null check for us:
------
void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *s)
{
int err;
if (unlikely(!s))
return;
------
--
Dominique
