> I know there has been some criticism about those kind of "code > improvements" already but i would like to point out just one more thing: > > Some of those NULL pointer checks on input parameters may have been > added subsequently to functions. So there may be older kernel versions > out there in which those checks dont exists in some cases. If some of > the now "cleaned up" code is backported to such a kernel chances are > good that those missing checks are overseen. And then neither caller nor > callee is doing the NULL pointer check. I guess that the Coccinelle software can also help you in this use case. How do you think about to shield against "unwanted" or unexpected collateral evolutions with additional inline functions? I assume that a few backporters can tell you more about their corresponding software development experiences. http://www.do-not-panic.com/2014/04/automatic-linux-kernel-backporting-with-coccinelle.html 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
