>> The label “discard” was used to jump to another pointer check despite of >> the detail in the implementation of the function “mei_cl_irq_read_msg” >> that it was determined already that a corresponding variable contained >> a null pointer. >> >> * Thus use an additional label instead. >> >> * Delete a redundant check. … >> +move_tail: > > In general, why not, but the label naming is bad. > It hides the original intent to discard this message. > Let's rename existing label to discard_nocb: and leave a new one as discard:. > Also, the patch will be smaller in this way. Do you expect a third patch version according to your naming preferences? Regards, Markus
