>>> We don't need perfection.
>>
>> I guess that you noticed in the meantime that I dare to propose
>> more software development efforts in such a direction.
>
> Yes, this is noticable.
I am curious then if remaining change suggestions will be picked up
by more software developers and reviewers.
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 09:57:54AM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > We don't need perfection.
>
> I guess that you noticed in the meantime that I dare to propose
> more software development efforts in such a direction.
Yes, this is noticable. It is your choice, however, other people may
> We don't need perfection.
I guess that you noticed in the meantime that I dare to propose
more software development efforts in such a direction.
> We need more to eliminate the memory leaks.
Will this view evolve into further helpful and constructive clarifications?
Regards,
Markus
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, wen.yan...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> > > Thanks, We will change it to something like this:
> > > In a function, for a local variable obtained by of_find_device_by_node()
> >
> > How do you think about another wording approach?
> >
> > 1. Precondition:
> > It will be checked where
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Thanks, We will change it to something like this:
> > In a function, for a local variable obtained by of_find_device_by_node()
>
> How do you think about another wording approach?
>
> 1. Precondition:
>It will be checked where the return value
> Thanks, We will change it to something like this:
> In a function, for a local variable obtained by of_find_device_by_node()
How do you think about another wording approach?
1. Precondition:
It will be checked where the return value is stored from
a call of the function