On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 09:33:51AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> … > >>> +++ b/drivers/a2b/a2b.c > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,1252 @@ > >> … > >>> +static int a2b_bus_of_add_node(struct a2b_bus *bus, struct device_node *np, > >>> + unsigned int addr) > >>> +{ > >> … > >>> + node = kzalloc(sizeof(*node), GFP_KERNEL); > >>> + if (IS_ERR(node)) > >>> + return -ENOMEM; > >> > >> Please improve the distinction for checks according to the handling of error/null pointers. > > > > Right, I think it returns NULL on error. > > Do you see possibilities to reduce “confusion” about the properties of such a programming interface > any further? > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.9.1/A/ident/kzalloc Hi, This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time. Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails from them. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot