[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506270906490.2016@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:07:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Anisse Astier <anisse@...ier.eu>,
Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
Ike Panhc <ike.pan@...onical.com>,
Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@...t42.net>,
Mattia Dongili <malattia@...ux.it>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] platform: x86: Deletion of checks before
backlight_device_unregister()
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:13:10PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >
> > > >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> > > >
> > > > What script was used ?
> > >
> > > A semantic patch approach which I published on the mailing lists in March
> > > is in action on my software development system for a while.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Is it in scripts/coccinelle ?
> > >
> > > Not yet.
> > >
> > > I hope that the involved update suggestions got sufficient positive feedback
> > > to integrate five scripts there.
> >
> > The current scripts are very complicated, involving the interaction
> > between multiple scripts and a database, and I think they are not very
> > suitable for make coccicheck. Also, the idea of removing the null checks
> > is not appropriate in all contexts. Perhaps it could be possible to add
> > a script to the Linux kernel that handles a number of common cases for
> > which removing the null test is widely considered to be desirable.
> >
> > julia
> >
>
> Julia, do you have any particular objection to this specific patch? I didn't see
> a reason to prevent it going in.
Sorry if I was unclear. If there is no problem with the current patch, I
have no objection to it. I don't think that the semantic patch that
caused this patch to be generated is suitable for inclusion in the Linux
kernel.
julia
--
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