Hi Simon, On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:33:06PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Eugeniu, > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 03:46, Eugeniu Rosca <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Paranoid programming [1] lies at the foundation of proper software > > development, but the repetitive zeroing-out of output arguments in the > > context of the same function rather clutters the code and inhibits > > further refactoring/optimization than is doing any good. > > > > In boot_get_fdt(), we already perform zero/NULL-initialization of > > *of_flat_tree and *of_size at the beginning of the function, so doing > > the same at function error-out is redundant/superfluous. > > > > Moreover, keeping the code unchanged might encourage the developers to > > update *of_flat_tree and *of_size during some interim computations, > > which is against the current design of boot_get_fdt(). Currently, > > writing useful data into these arguments happens just before > > successfully returning from boot_get_fdt() and it should better stay so. > > > > [1] https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1106 > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca <[email protected]> > > --- > > Changes in v2: > > - s/zeroint-out/zeroing-out/ in commit description > > - Link v1: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1071586/ > > --- > > common/image-fdt.c | 2 -- > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > But please update the comment to for the function: > > * of_flat_tree and of_size are set to 0 if no fdt exists
Thank you very much for the review. Since the patch is part of a series and there are no other comments except this one, should I decouple it and send as v3 standalone or there is still some chance for getting feedback for the other patches (and sending an update for the whole series)? > > Regards, > Simon Best regards, Eugeniu. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
