On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:48 AM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
>> I've made it through the first half (23/46) and of those
>> I've merged patches …, 7, …
>
> It seems that you dropped this one while integrating the eighth
> update step.
Yes, my mistake, as I said in my
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:48 AM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
>> I've made it through the first half (23/46) and of those
>> I've merged patches …, 7, …
>
> It seems that you dropped this one while integrating the eighth
> update step.
Yes, my mistake, as I said in my response to that patch, I do
> I've made it through the first half (23/46) and of those
> I've merged patches …, 7, …
It seems that you dropped this one while integrating the eighth
update step.
Regards,
Markus
> I've made it through the first half (23/46) and of those
> I've merged patches …, 7, …
It seems that you dropped this one while integrating the eighth
update step.
Regards,
Markus
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:55 AM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +0100
>
> Several update suggestions were taken into account
> from static source code analysis.
>
> Markus Elfring
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:55 AM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +0100
>
> Several update suggestions were taken into account
> from static source code analysis.
>
> Markus Elfring (46):
Hi Markus,
Thank you for your patience with this
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Eric Paris wrote:
>
Well, not totally irrelevant, I just reserve the right to ignore Eric
if I disagree with him ;)
> All of the patches look good to me except most of those which change
> the handling of `rc=`. I have a personal style
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Eric Paris wrote:
>
Well, not totally irrelevant, I just reserve the right to ignore Eric
if I disagree with him ;)
> All of the patches look good to me except most of those which change
> the handling of `rc=`. I have a personal style preference for
>
> rc =
All of the patches look good to me except most of those which change
the handling of `rc=`. I have a personal style preference for
rc = -ENOMEM;
val = kalloc();
if (!val)
goto err;
vs
val = kalloc();
if (!val) {
rc = -ENOMEM;
goto err;
}
because it saves 1 line and I think the compiler
All of the patches look good to me except most of those which change
the handling of `rc=`. I have a personal style preference for
rc = -ENOMEM;
val = kalloc();
if (!val)
goto err;
vs
val = kalloc();
if (!val) {
rc = -ENOMEM;
goto err;
}
because it saves 1 line and I think the compiler
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +0100
Several update suggestions were taken into account
from static source code analysis.
Markus Elfring (46):
Use kmalloc_array() in cond_init_bool_indexes()
Delete an unnecessary return statement in
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:15:14 +0100
Several update suggestions were taken into account
from static source code analysis.
Markus Elfring (46):
Use kmalloc_array() in cond_init_bool_indexes()
Delete an unnecessary return statement in cond_compute_av()
Improve size
12 matches
Mail list logo