>> I would prefer a safer coding style for the corresponding >> exception handling. > > Can you please point out what is wrong in the current code Is it useful to reconsider the software situation that another memory allocation is attempted when it could be determined that a previous one failed already? Are two successful allocations finally needed to achieve the desired task? > and how the changes you propose fix the problem? I suggest to check return values immediately after each function call. An error situation can be detected earlier then and only the required clean-up functionality will be executed at the end. > No one has expressed acceptance for the kind of change you propose with > this patch, or to previous patches you proposed changing similar constructs. I got a mixed impression from the acceptance statistics about my published patches. > The fact that you propose over and over again a class of changes that > has been already vocally rejected would suggest otherwise. I dare to propose another look at results from source code search patterns. > The major achievement you obtained so far is that one of the maintainers > of a large fraction of the kernel refuses to look at your patch submissions. It can happen that some patterns are occasionally "too special" to grow the popularity for such change possibilities and desired software improvements quickly. There are also different views about affected implementation details by the software development community, aren't 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
