>> I agree with Dan. I'm ok with not accepting this patch. > > And I have no intention to :) This is a pity. > At least they should explain why or how it help, Do you see useful consequences (like a bit less memory requirements) if the assignment statement “err = -ENODEV” will be stored only once behind the jump label “failure_indication” in the suggested update for the implementation of the function “ioat_xor_val_self_test” (instead of being duplicated several times)? > give the Coccinelle scripts.. How can they matter for a better understanding of the concrete source code adjustment? > But sadly that is not done ... I did not include a link for special background information explicitly. But how do you think about corresponding details from discussions on a topic like “Comparing statement lists with SmPL”? https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2017-August/004388.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
