2012/3/29 Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 18:28, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > <really-small-bikeshedding> > I don't know if it should go into a separate patch though. But it is aligned > to the other formatting patterns you do, and it certainly looks nicer this > way, and it shouldn't break anything anyway. So I am fine either way :). > </really-small-bikeshedding> I agree, but it's a single-line change that does not make much sense without this patch, so I decided to not have a patch that just replaces " " with "\t". >> The previous function dump_props also segfaulted when we didn't have >> enought permissions. The new function does not segfault in this case (by >> checking for the return value of drmModeGetProperty). > > <another-bikeshedding> > I think this could be done in a separate patch.. > </another-bikeshedding> No. This is just a note like "the function I just killed had a bug, the function that replaces it does not have the same bug". It would make no sense to send a patch to fix the old function, then send this patch replacing the whole function. Why fix it if you're going to replace it? -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
