Re: [PATCH] firmware/dmi_scan: Drop OOM messages

Re: [PATCH] firmware/dmi_scan: Drop OOM messages

[Joe Perches]

even more trivial...

On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 14:47 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> +++ linux-3.11-rc0/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c	2013-07-10 14:11:56.544792703 +0200
> @@ -62,8 +62,6 @@ static const char * __init dmi_string(co
>  	str = dmi_alloc(len);
>  	if (str != NULL)
[]
> @@ -219,10 +217,8 @@ static void __init dmi_save_one_device(i
>  	dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*dev) + strlen(name) + 1);
> +	if (!dev)
>  		return;
[]
> @@ -258,10 +254,8 @@ static void __init dmi_save_oem_strings_
>  		dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*dev));
> +		if (!dev)
>  			break;
[]
> @@ -277,18 +271,14 @@ static void __init dmi_save_ipmi_device(
>  	data = dmi_alloc(dm->length);
> +	if (data == NULL)
>  		return;
[]
>  	dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*dev));
> +	if (!dev)
>  		return;
[]
> @@ -303,10 +293,9 @@ static void __init dmi_save_dev_onboard(
>  	onboard_dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*onboard_dev) + strlen(name) + 1);
> +	if (!onboard_dev)
>  		return;

It'd also be nice to use the same test style
in all 6 uses.

	if (!foo)

Re: [PATCH] firmware/dmi_scan: Drop OOM messages

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Joe,

Le Wednesday 10 July 2013 à 07:51 -0700, Joe Perches a écrit :
> even more trivial...
> 
> On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 14:47 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > +++ linux-3.11-rc0/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c	2013-07-10 14:11:56.544792703 +0200
> > @@ -62,8 +62,6 @@ static const char * __init dmi_string(co
> >  	str = dmi_alloc(len);
> >  	if (str != NULL)
> []
> > @@ -219,10 +217,8 @@ static void __init dmi_save_one_device(i
> >  	dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*dev) + strlen(name) + 1);
> > +	if (!dev)
> >  		return;
> []
> > @@ -258,10 +254,8 @@ static void __init dmi_save_oem_strings_
> >  		dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*dev));
> > +		if (!dev)
> >  			break;
> []
> > @@ -277,18 +271,14 @@ static void __init dmi_save_ipmi_device(
> >  	data = dmi_alloc(dm->length);
> > +	if (data == NULL)
> >  		return;
> []
> >  	dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*dev));
> > +	if (!dev)
> >  		return;
> []
> > @@ -303,10 +293,9 @@ static void __init dmi_save_dev_onboard(
> >  	onboard_dev = dmi_alloc(sizeof(*onboard_dev) + strlen(name) + 1);
> > +	if (!onboard_dev)
> >  		return;
> 
> It'd also be nice to use the same test style
> in all 6 uses.
> 
> 	if (!foo)

Both styles are used throughout the file, and checkpatch doesn't
complain. Unifying the coding style is beyond the scope of my patchset,
sorry. Feel free to send a patch on top of mine if you really care.

-- 
Jean Delvare
Suse L3

Re: [PATCH] firmware/dmi_scan: Drop OOM messages

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 18:17 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Le Wednesday 10 July 2013 à 07:51 -0700, Joe Perches a écrit :
> > even more trivial...
[]
> > It'd also be nice to use the same test style
> > in all 6 uses.
> > 
> > 	if (!foo)
> 
> Both styles are used throughout the file, and checkpatch doesn't
> complain.

And it might be wrong for checkpatch to complain as
there are tens of thousands of those in the kernel.

I think using both styles in the same file is poor
form though.

> Unifying the coding style is beyond the scope of my patchset,
> sorry. Feel free to send a patch on top of mine if you really care.

No worries.  If I remember, I'll send a patch after
yours hit -next.