Thanks for clearing my doubt, and you can add:
Acked-by: Jun Piao <piao...@huawei.com>
On 2018/8/10 9:41, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, I mean the commit message.
>
>>> 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]
>
It looks better.
>>> + 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;
> ------
>
OK, it makes sense.
