From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: xerofoify@gmail.com (nick)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 20:51:10 -0400
Subject: Bug Patch
In-Reply-To: <75027.1410214199@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <540D86B2.6080505@gmail.com>
	<15552.1410199704@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<540E1A23.2040200@gmail.com>
	<75027.1410214199@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <540E4EFE.8010508@gmail.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org



On 14-09-08 06:09 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:05:39 -0400, nick said:
> 
>> In ieee_80211_rx.c we may have a Null allocated sub in parse_subframe
>> and need to check if the allocated skb is NUll. If it is return -ENOMEM.
> 
>> +			if (!sub_skb)
>> +				return NULL;
> 
> 1) null, Null, and NULL are all OK in various contexts.  NUll isn't.
> 
> 2) the rest of the file uses 'return 0;' not 'return NULL;'
> 
> Oh, and (3)  What's wrong with this picture?
> 
> Nick, this is *exactly* the reason why *NOBODY* wants to accept code
> from you.  It's faster and more efficient for me to code the
> patch myself and stick a Reported-By: crediting you for spotting
> the bug than it takes for multiple iterations to get your patch right.
> 
> And the *reason* I'm submitting the patch myself is because every single
> problem that's been pointed out to you with this patch is something that
> has been pointed out to you before on other patches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Thanks for at least giving me credit.
Nick