[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <575625da-60bc-4444-a5f3-a7acf925f1e5@suswa.mountain>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 00:09:35 -0500
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>
Cc: miriam.rachel.korenblit@...el.com, kvalo@...nel.org,
johannes.berg@...el.com, gregory.greenman@...el.com,
benjamin.berg@...el.com, daniel.gabay@...el.com,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] wifi: iwlwifi: mvm: fix an error code in
iwl_mvm_alloc_sta_after_restart()
The Subject says RESEND but doesn't explain why you are resending.
You probably meant v2, but again it needs an explanation.
On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 12:27:40PM +0800, Ma Ke wrote:
> This error path should return -EINVAL instead of success.
Why do you feel that way? Have you tested it? What is the user visible
effect of this bug?
I slightly feel hypocritical because I have send lots of commit messages
with exactly this commit message. The difference is that I only send
really easy patches where it's obvious what the intent was. A normal
kernel developer wouldn't need to leave their email client or view any
outside information to see that my patch is correct. If a patch is not
dead easy, I normally just report it. (Sometimes I report dead easy
bugs as well because I am lazy and maybe it's the end of my work day
or whatever).
This patch on the other hand is more subtle and it's not clear why the
continue statements changed into returns.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists