>> How will this aspect evolve further? > > I do not follow. Interesting … > This is OMAP framebuffer driver, so in this case, there is zero variation. How much are you interested to compare differences in build results also for this software module because of varying parameters? Which parameters were applied for your size comparisons so far? > Could you, please, review following patch I assume that other OMAP developers are in a better position to decide about the deletion of extra memory allocations (instead of keeping questionable error messages). > and verify is it satisfies your automated static code analysis test? I am not going to “verify” your update suggestion by my evolving approaches around the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software) at the moment. But I thank you for this contribution. How will further feedback evolve for such an idea? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
