Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/perf/hv-24x7: use kmem_cache instead of aligned stack allocations

From: Cody P Schafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 16:54:07 -0700

On 05/22/2014 04:49 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Cody,
>
> On Thu, 22 May 2014 15:44:25 -0700 Cody P Schafer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>   	if (ret) {
>>   		if (success_expected)
>>   			pr_err_ratelimited("hcall failed: %d %#x %#x %d => 0x%lx (%ld) detail=0x%x failing ix=%x\n",
>>   					domain, offset, ix, lpar,
>>   					ret, ret,
>> -					result_buffer.buf.detailed_rc,
>> -					result_buffer.buf.failing_request_ix);
>> -		return ret;
>> +					result_buffer->buf.detailed_rc,
>> +					result_buffer->buf.failing_request_ix);
>> +		goto out_hcall;
>>   	}
>>
>> -	*res = be64_to_cpu(result_buffer.result);
>> +	*res = be64_to_cpu(result_buffer->result);
>
> not a biggie, but this last bit could be (remove the goto out_hcall and
> teh label and then)
>
> 	} else {
> 		*res = be64_to_cpu(result_buffer->result);
> 	}
>

I've got a slight preference toward keeping it as is, which lets all of 
the non-error path code stay outside of if/else blocks (and the error 
handling is kept ever so slightly more consistent).

>> +out_hcall:
>> +	kfree(result_buffer);
>> +out_resb:
>> +	kfree(request_buffer);
>> +out_reqb:
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
>>
>
> otherwise looks good to me.
>