Re: [media] spca500: Use common error handling code in spca500_synch310()

On 9/22/17 11:46 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: They are both equally uninformative. >>> >>> Which identifier would you find appropriate there? >> >> error was fine. > > How do the different views fit together? You want to change something. Changing something requires to spend energy. You

Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics?

On 12/12/16 3:11 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> It is really needed to clarify the corresponding software development >>> history any further? >> >> It is relevant because you are submitting a patch and your changelog >> implies that it makes the code follow some code structure rule that >>

Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics?

On 12/12/16 11:03 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> Have you proposed a similar patch that was accepted? > > Yes. - It happened a few times. The question was: have you ever had a patch changing code in the form { a = kmalloc(...); b = kmalloc(...); if (!a || !b)

Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after error detection

On 12/12/16 10:15 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> I suggest to check return values immediately after each function call. >>> An error situation can be detected earlier then and only the required >>> clean-up functionality will be executed at the end. >> >> Which improvement does this bring? > >

Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after error detection

On 12/12/16 00:33, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> I would prefer a safer coding style for the corresponding >>> exception handling. >> >> Can you please point out what is wrong in the current code > > Is it useful to reconsider the software situation that another memory > allocation is attempted

Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after error detection

On 10/12/16 15:10, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> Despite that, you have found several instances of similar constructs: > > Yes. - Special source code search pattern can point such places out > for further considerations. This is one of the things that makes reviewing the patches you submit quire

Re: [PATCH 1/4] [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after error detection

On 10/12/16 13:48, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 09:29:24 +0100 > > The kfree() function was called in one case by the > bttv_input_init() function during error handling > even if the passed variable contained a null