Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: obdclass: lprocfs_status.c: Fix for possible null pointer dereference
Strongly agreed that execution speed is not critical here. It's the update of a proc
variable, not a tight loop or critical section.
Normally I'd leave it alone, but since you're writing a patch anyway, I'd do
'tolower' myself. I dislike the stacked case statements on a single line like
that. (It's the only time I've seen them written that way. Perhaps it's
common and I've just missed it.)
Regards,
- Patrick
________________________________________
From: HPDD-discuss [hpdd-discuss-bounces(a)lists.01.org] on behalf of Joe Perches
[joe(a)perches.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:53 PM
To: Rickard Strandqvist
Cc: devel(a)driverdev.osuosl.org; Fabian Frederick; Julia Lawall; James Simmons; Greg
Kroah-Hartman; linux-kernel(a)vger.kernel.org; Greg Donald; HPDD-discuss(a)lists.01.org;
Andriy Skulysh
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: obdclass: lprocfs_status.c:
Fix for possible null pointer dereference
On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 23:23 +0100, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
Hi Joe
Hello Rickard
No, it does not look like end can be NULL then.
Then remove the end != NULL instead?
...
if (end != NULL && *end == '.') {
Up to you.
However, I am hesitant to the tolower() I think double case is
faster...?
I doubt code execution speed is paramount here.
Maybe see if the object code size is smaller one
way or the other.
_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss(a)lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss