On 12/12/16 00:33, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> 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? No. > Are two successful allocations finally needed to achieve the desired task? Yes. >> 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. Which improvement does this bring? >> 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. Have you proposed a similar patch that was accepted? I don't find record of it, but I may be wrong. >> 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. Why? Cheers, Daniele -- 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
