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
