From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:22:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] staging: unisys: Remove allocation from declaration line
Message-Id: <54DC9AF4.8050805@gmail.com>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20150210130214.GA18429@sloth> <20150210222627.GC27072@kroah.com> <20150211102306.GB26542@mwanda>
In-Reply-To: <20150211102306.GB26542@mwanda>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, sparmaintainer@unisys.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Romer <benjamin.romer@unisys.com>, David Kershner <david.kershner@unisys.com>

On 11/02/2015 11:23, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 06:26:27AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:02:14PM +0100, Quentin Lambert wrote:
>>> This patch removes allocation from declaration line because
>>> people are known to gloss over declarations.
>> Again, who are these lazy people, and why are they reading kernel code?
>>
>  From my work with smatch:
> 1) Probably 70-80% of inconsistent NULL checking is when done in the
>     initializer.  I'm sending a patch for one of these today.
> 2) If there is an allocation in the initializer then it's more likely
>     that the NULL check will be missing.
> Initializers are a blind spot that people do not read.  It's not just
> one maintainer, it's consistent across the board.
>
> Also if you put an allocation in the initializer then it almost always
> has to be mangled to fit in 80 characters and it looks ugly.  But after
> these patches then all the allocations fit naturally.
>
> Plus you have to have that blank line to separate the initialization
> paragraph from the paragraph with the check for allocation failure.
>
> Really, it is fairly uncommon to put an allocation in the initalizer.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
In the case this patch wasn't accepted what should I do with
this one: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/10/182 ?

Do you want me to submit a non-dependent version?

regards,
Quentin