> After your patch then it will print warning messages. To which messages do you refer to? > The truth is I think that all these patches are bad and they make the > code harder to read. > > Before: The code is clear and there is no NULL dereference. Where do you stumble on a null pointer access? > After: You have to remember that rtw_free_netdev() accepts NULL > pointers but free_netdev() does not accept NULL pointers. Are any improvements needed for the corresponding documentation to make it better accessible besides the source code? > The if statements are there for *human* readers to understand and you are > making it harder for humans to understand the code. Is there a target conflict between source code understandability and software efficiency? > Even for kfree(), just removing the if statement is not really the right > fix. We do it because everyone knows kfree(), but what Julia Lawall > said is the real correct way change the code and make it simpler for > people to understand: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/31/452 You refer to another update suggestion for the software area "staging: rtl8188eu". Do you find adjustments for jump labels easier to accept than the simple deletion of specific null pointer checks? > I know it's fun to send automated patches but these make the code worse > and they waste reviewer time. I hope that small automated changes can also help to improve affected source files. Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
