Re: [PATCH 23/23] locktorture: Check the correct variable for allocation failure

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> There is a typo so this checks the wrong variable.  "chains" plural vs
> "chain" singular.  We already know that "chains" is non-zero.
> 
> Fixes: 7f993623e9eb ("locktorture: Add call_rcu_chains module parameter")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>

A name change to increase the Hamming distance would of course also be
good, though less urgent.  ;-)

> ---
>  kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> index a3abcd136f56..69d3cd2cfc3b 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c
> @@ -1075,7 +1075,7 @@ static int call_rcu_chain_init(void)
>  	if (call_rcu_chains <= 0)
>  		return 0;
>  	call_rcu_chain = kcalloc(call_rcu_chains, sizeof(*call_rcu_chain), GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!call_rcu_chains)
> +	if (!call_rcu_chain)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	for (i = 0; i < call_rcu_chains; i++) {
>  		call_rcu_chain[i].crc_stop = false;
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>