> The original code is very clear, the new code works exactly the same but > it's not clear if the author forgot about handling errors from > audit_log_start(). We have got different expectations on source code clarity here. > So now someone will come along later and add: > if (!ab) > return; > > We get a lot of mindless "add error handling" patches like that. This is an interesting background information. Do you eventually prefer to improve the affected error detection and corresponding exception handling? Will a condition check become absolutely necessary there? 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
