Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/9] perf util: Get rid of malloc_or_die() in trace-event-read.c | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:13:25 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:00 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:55:02 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 10:14 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:50:02 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 17:53 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > >> >> free(version); > >> >> @@ -331,11 +354,12 @@ ssize_t trace_report(int fd, struct pevent **ppevent, bool __repipe) > >> >> > >> >> page_size = read4(pevent); > >> >> > >> >> - read_header_files(pevent); > >> >> - read_ftrace_files(pevent); > >> >> - read_event_files(pevent); > >> >> - read_proc_kallsyms(pevent); > >> >> - read_ftrace_printk(pevent); > >> >> + if (read_header_files(pevent) || > >> >> + read_ftrace_files(pevent) || > >> >> + read_event_files(pevent) || > >> >> + read_proc_kallsyms(pevent) || > >> >> + read_ftrace_printk(pevent)) > >> >> + goto out; > >> > > >> > I think I like the err += func() and check for err < 0, better. > >> > >> Okay, I'll change them to err |= func() style if you're fine as Peter > >> suggested. > > > > += or |= I'm not picky ;-) > > Ah, one thing I also care was the short-circuit logic. I think we don't > need to call later functions if one fails, do we?
Yeah, good point. It still looks ugly, but it does make sense.
-- Steve
| |