[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <568ECCD3.1020700@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 21:38:43 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...ium.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: net-thunder: One check less in nicvf_register_interrupts() after
error detection
> Some prefer that source code be "templatized" regardless
> of the number of exit points that any particular use of a
> specific function type.
This is another interesting view on involved implementation details.
> Some of your patches are converting these templatized
> functions to a different form for no added value.
Would you like to distinguish a bit more between my evolving
collection of update suggestions and the concrete proposal
for the function "nicvf_register_interrupts"?
> These patches make the local source code inconsistent
> and generally goes against the authors preferred style.
Which programming approach will be the leading one here finally?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists