On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 05:53:28PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 21:34 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > So this kind of evolution is no problem for the (automated) backports > > > using the backports project - although it can be difficult to detect > > > such a thing is needed. > > > > That is exactly the problem... > > I'm not convinced though that it should stop such progress in mainline. Is it progress? These patches match the code look simpler by passing hiding the NULL check inside a function call. Calling pci_dev_put(NULL) doesn't make sense. Just because a sanity check exists doesn't mean we should do insane things. It's easy enough to store which functions have a sanity check in a database, but to rememember all that as a human being trying to read the code is impossible. If we really wanted to make this code cleaner we would introduce more error labels with better names. regards, dan carpenter -- 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
