Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Change a few functions that relied on a "false" being the last > statement in the function to use an explicit "return 1" like the other > functions in this file. While not wrong per-se, this and a few other changes in this series are typical of your multi-patch series that unnecessarily consume reviewer bandwidth that could be better spent on other more important and correctness sensitive steps (like 07/16) in the same series. You should find a good balance to avoid wearing out and distracting your reviewers---they are the most scarce resource around here that must be shared by other people, not just with other topics of your own. Thanks.
