On 01/19/2017 11:08 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> I think you really could have squashed patches 1-3 into a single patch >> that returns directly after any failure. > > Thanks for your constructive feedback. > > I have got software development concerns around such patch squashing. > > >> At this point you might as well remove that label and move the kfree(tmp) call up >> and return directly after the failure and at the nvram_write() call site >> doing away completely with the "ret" variable. > > Your idea might look nice at first glance. But I would interpret the previous > implementation of the discussed function in the way that the memory which was > dynamically allocated here should always (not only in the failure case) be released > before returning here. You are correct. I did muck that part up. However, I do still believe it is cleaner to squash your three patches together. There is no functional change here and it is clearer in a single patch that you are modifying the function to return directly in the simple error cases. -Tyrel > > Would you really like to change the life time for this “temporary” data item? > > 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
