On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:24:43PM +0200, walter harms wrote:
> Hello Julia,
>
> IMHO keep the patch as it is.
> It does not change any code that is good.
> Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
> in a separate patch.
>
Gar... No, if we silence static checker warnings without fixin
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:19:18 +0200 (CEST)
Julia Lawall wrote:
> Oops, thanks for spotting that. I'm not sure whether it is safe to abort
> these calls as soon as the first one fails, but perhaps I could introduce
> some more variables, and test them all afterwards.
Yes, it would be safe. But
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
index e8a1ce2..4a5a5dc 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
@@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ stati
Hello Julia,
IMHO keep the patch as it is.
It does not change any code that is good.
Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
in a separate patch.
just my 2 cents,
re,
wh
Am 05.08.2013 18:19, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, walter harms wrote:
Hello Julia,
IMHO keep the patch as it is.
It does not change any code that is good.
Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
in a separate patch.
OK, thanks!
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
