From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:40:10 +0000 Subject: Re: drm/i915/gvt: Use common error handling code in shadow_workload_ring_buffer() Message-Id: <22f5cdc7-fb58-1d62-0d5e-a3465297bb00@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <87efpsiu7r.fsf@intel.com> <636f6272-9074-53dc-2c90-cbb4a7cd0901@users.sourceforge.net> <1A433E6A-DE06-4407-9E33-3CBBA4ADF01B@gmail.com> <20171024142615.t3y5atz6nulkq55h@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20171024142615.t3y5atz6nulkq55h@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dan Carpenter , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Garry Hurley , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Rodrigo Vivi > This isn't the case here. I find your view interesting for further clarification somehow. > Instead of making the code more readable, we're making it more convoluted. Can the shown software refactoring usually help here? > It's just that two out of three error messages happened to be the same This is true. > and Markus wants to save a bit of memory by using the same string. And also the same executable code (besides an identical error message). > The memory savings is not so big that it's worth making the code less readable. How does such a feedback fit to information for the deletion of questionable messages at other source code places? Regards, Markus