On September 17, 2014 7:53:24 AM EDT, nick <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >On 14-09-17 07:51 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:08 PM, nick <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 14-09-17 07:20 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> <snip> >>>> anyway, it's time for coffee. >>>> >>>> rday >>>> >>> Rday and others, >>> That's not what I wanted I was trying to improve my rep after >getting banned from vger.org and now it seems >>> I can't even get a patch right. In addition I was trying to do check >patch because it was easier for me >>> due to not understanding some parts of the code. >>> Nick >>> >> >> try to understand the code first. if you do not understand the code >> how do you know that your patch will not break any part of the logic >. >> ok , by adding blank lines you will not break the logic. >> but yesterday in your other patch you removed an error message . may >i >> ask why did you think that error message is not required ? >> >> thanks >> sudip >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Kernelnewbies mailing list >>> Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies >I thought that the return statement of NULL to a caller was enough. >Nick Uh... I don't know that chunk of code, but error messages that go to the kernel log exist for a specific reason. Taking them out requires a specific reason. Ie. This would make a good commit message "At this point the condition is well understood and the code that handles it is well tested and has been stable for 3 years, thus removing the error message." Greg -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
