Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:46:09PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> If you look at the patches, you'll notice that I made them functions
>> when there were return values, only the ones returning void were done
>> like this. If you can point out an actual problem with this approach,
>> please do so.
>
> Jes, does every single review comment have to be a fight? I'm not
> asking you to redo things. I've made this same review comment to
> several other people this month about adding empty do { } while(0)
> macros.
Dan,
Let me ask this another way, does every patch submission have to end up
in a nit-picking session over non-issues? I get the distinct impression
you simply want to comment just to have the last word.
I am very pleased to have real bug reports, but I have a hard time
seeing what value this report adds, rather than simply wasting the time
of developers.
> I think you are smart enough and understand about side effects. It's
> something that perhaps people worry about too much, you are right. I
> have done this research and we only fix maybe three of them per year in
> the entire kernel. So they're pretty rare and perhaps not worth the
> fuss.
As I said, I took care of the non void returning functions to make sure
there were no side effects. The kernel has a presedence for allowing
this for years and unless you can show me an example of where the
construct I used can have potential side effects, I can only consider
this as unnecessary fuss.
Again, I very much appreciate actual bug reports and I do encourage you
to continue to send those!
Jes
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
