On 12/21/2017 05:32 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>>> 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? OK, it makes sense! I will rephrase the commit message and cite the origin of the patch. > > >>>> 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? Yes, it's trivial. We can live without the change, in my understanding it's basically code clean-up, in order to get more readable and concise code. Oh, one can say about performance (1 less "if" per function), but I didn't measure that and I think it doesn't matter much. Anyway, it's a welcome change! I'm not trying to diminish it. > > >> 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? OK, since make things separated seems so important to you in this case, we can do it! No big deal =) I'll resend today. Thanks, Guilherme > > 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
