>>> We have some unnecessary checks for NULL pointer >> >> How do you think about to mention other function calls which made >> the software situation questionable at these places? > > Didn't understand your statement. Can you exemplify? 1. I came along this place because of a specific source code analysis (which evolved then in an other direction). jsm_tty: Fix a possible null pointer dereference in two functions https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/29/705 https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10082775/ 2. How would you like to explain in the commit description that two null pointer checks are not needed any more? >>> We also added one possibly necessary NULL check. >>> >>> No functional change is intended. >> >> * This information does not fit to the commit subject. >> >> * The check addition should be offered in a separate patch. >> > > Well, I kind of agree with you - this information is counter-intuitive > when reading the subject. Thanks that we have got a similar understanding about it. > But I'd rather change the subject than send another patch, Please separate the topics in a safe way. > it's just so small Does the deletion of sanity checks look too trivial? > and the content of this patch itself fits together in my opinion... Patch squashing might occasionally look too attractive. > no need to decouple. I disagree to your conclusion in this case. > Do you have a suggestion to a better subject? Would you like to take another look at information from the section “3) Separate your changes” in the document “submitting-patches.rst” for the discussed source code transformation? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
