On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 13:53:33 -0400 (EDT) > John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Although your fix appears to be correct, I wonder if it would be better to > > > > create a second error label, such as out_destroy_tool: as described in > > > > section 7 of the coding-style.rst > > > > > > > > > > There's no reason for that. It's the only error path. That is, nothing > > > would jump to the original out_err: > > > > > > And for a single error, an if statement is good enough. > > > > > > -- Steve > > > > > > > > > > Ah, right of course. > > Okay in that case, Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx> > > (applied the patch, built and ran) > > Note, "Signed-off-by" is for the author of a patch or someone pushing it > through their tree. I believe you want either "Acked-by" or "Reviewed-by", > and since you ran it you could also add "Tested-by". > > -- Steve Thanks Steve, Reviewed-by: John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx>
