Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

2015-12-22 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:48:57PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > That's 6 different things, shouldn't this be 6 different patches? > Not really. The patch could be described as just "change from using one exit label to using several." Markus has sent a number of these patches and I am

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

2015-12-22 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:48:57PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > That's 6 different things, shouldn't this be 6 different patches? > Not really. The patch could be described as just "change from using one exit label to using several." Markus has sent a number of these patches and I am

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

2015-12-21 Thread SF Markus Elfring
>> 6. Apply a recommendation from the script "checkpatch.pl". > > That's 6 different things, shouldn't this be 6 different patches? > > please redo. Dan Carpenter requested to squash the previous update steps 5 and 6 into a single patch for better source code review. Now I see further software

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

2015-12-21 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:12:12PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:58:51 +0100 > > A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function > even though it was determined that the passed variable "pages" contained > a null

[PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

2015-12-21 Thread SF Markus Elfring
From: Markus Elfring Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:58:51 +0100 A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function even though it was determined that the passed variable "pages" contained a null pointer or a call of the alloc_page() function failed. 1. Let us return directly

[PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

2015-12-21 Thread SF Markus Elfring
From: Markus Elfring Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:58:51 +0100 A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function even though it was determined that the passed variable "pages" contained a null pointer or a call of the alloc_page() function

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

2015-12-21 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:12:12PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:58:51 +0100 > > A few checks would be performed by the mgc_process_recover_log() function > even though it was determined that the passed variable

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection

2015-12-21 Thread SF Markus Elfring
>> 6. Apply a recommendation from the script "checkpatch.pl". > > That's 6 different things, shouldn't this be 6 different patches? > > please redo. Dan Carpenter requested to squash the previous update steps 5 and 6 into a single patch for better source code review. Now I see further software