[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef4d8039-6d5c-5d31-515b-eda9f05faff6@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 19:39:21 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Geliang Tang <geliangtang@...il.com>,
Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>,
Pan Bian <bianpan2016@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dmaengine: ioat: Use common error handling code in
ioat_xor_val_self_test()
>> I agree with Dan. I'm ok with not accepting this patch.
>
> And I have no intention to :)
This is a pity.
> At least they should explain why or how it help,
Do you see useful consequences (like a bit less memory requirements)
if the assignment statement “err = -ENODEV” will be stored only once
behind the jump label “failure_indication” in the suggested update
for the implementation of the function “ioat_xor_val_self_test”
(instead of being duplicated several times)?
> give the Coccinelle scripts..
How can they matter for a better understanding of the concrete
source code adjustment?
> But sadly that is not done ...
I did not include a link for special background information explicitly.
But how do you think about corresponding details from discussions
on a topic like “Comparing statement lists with SmPL”?
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2017-August/004388.html
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists