From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 21:30:48 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net-qmi_wwan: Delete an unnecessary variable initialisation in qmi_wwan_register_sub Message-Id: <87ziwnpt2v.fsf@nemi.mork.no> List-Id: References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5686AE52.1020008@users.sourceforge.net> <5686AFAE.7020401@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <5686AFAE.7020401@users.sourceforge.net> (SF Markus Elfring's message of "Fri, 1 Jan 2016 17:56:14 +0100") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall SF Markus Elfring writes: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 17:35:03 +0100 > > Omit explicit initialisation at the beginning for one local variable > that is redefined before its first use. This patch is unnecessary. The variable initialisation is redundant. See the difference? Sending an unnecessary patch causes unnecessary load on reviewers and maintainers. Keeping redundant code has no measurable cost, and can save the same maintainers a lot of trouble later. I'd like to keep this particular redundant initialisation as a safe guard against future code refactoring, causing for example the err label to move up. Yes, I do understand that any patch with such a bug should be rejected, but I do know what happens in the real world and how easy it is for something like that to slip through in a stream of unnecessary "cleanup" patches. Reducing redundancy in the kernel is only making the code less robust. It is harmful. Please stop. Thanks. Bj=C3=B8rn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752170AbcABVba (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jan 2016 16:31:30 -0500 Received: from canardo.mork.no ([148.122.252.1]:59921 "EHLO canardo.mork.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751859AbcABVb2 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jan 2016 16:31:28 -0500 From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net-qmi_wwan: Delete an unnecessary variable initialisation in qmi_wwan_register_subdriver() Organization: m References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net> <5686AE52.1020008@users.sourceforge.net> <5686AFAE.7020401@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 22:30:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5686AFAE.7020401@users.sourceforge.net> (SF Markus Elfring's message of "Fri, 1 Jan 2016 17:56:14 +0100") Message-ID: <87ziwnpt2v.fsf@nemi.mork.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130013 (Ma Gnus v0.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org SF Markus Elfring writes: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 17:35:03 +0100 > > Omit explicit initialisation at the beginning for one local variable > that is redefined before its first use. This patch is unnecessary. The variable initialisation is redundant. See the difference? Sending an unnecessary patch causes unnecessary load on reviewers and maintainers. Keeping redundant code has no measurable cost, and can save the same maintainers a lot of trouble later. I'd like to keep this particular redundant initialisation as a safe guard against future code refactoring, causing for example the err label to move up. Yes, I do understand that any patch with such a bug should be rejected, but I do know what happens in the real world and how easy it is for something like that to slip through in a stream of unnecessary "cleanup" patches. Reducing redundancy in the kernel is only making the code less robust. It is harmful. Please stop. Thanks. Bjørn