[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54AB02F3.5020308@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 22:32:35 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
Ron Minnich <rminnich@...dia.gov>,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] fs/9p: Deletion of unnecessary checks before the
function call "p9_client_clunk"
>> The p9_client_clunk() function tests whether its argument is NULL
>> and then returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.
>>
>
> Not true. You are not allowed to call p9_client_clunk(NULL).
I find that it will work in principle if we refer to the same
function implementation.
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/net/9p/client.c?id=d8282ea05ad119247122de23db7d48ad6098cfa2#n1448
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/net/9p/client.c#L1448
> I assume this patch adds a bug.
It can happen that you will not like a corresponding error message
if the callers will still pass null pointers eventually.
... Trying to clunk with NULL ...
> I assume this patch adds a bug. You have tried to introduce several of these
> kinds of bugs.
Do any other contributors want to reject my update suggestions
around software components for "fs/9p"?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists