From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:41:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] au1100fb: Delete unnecessary checks before two function calls Message-Id: <20150205134114.GH5336@mwanda> List-Id: References: <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <54D36CCE.6050401@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <54D36CCE.6050401@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard , Tomi Valkeinen , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:14:54PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 14:10:21 +0100 > > The functions clk_enable() and clk_disable() test whether their argument > is NULL and then return immediately. This isn't true for clk_enable(). "I find it acceptable that some of my update suggestions do not fit to your quality expectations at the moment." -- https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/22/446 It's frustrating that you make the same mistake over and over and you are fine with doing that. If you make a mistake and you are fixing a bug, then hopefully you fix more bugs than you introduce. If you make a mistake and you are doing a cleanup then you are really just introducing bugs and that's not helpful. I wish you would find something useful to do instead of sending these patches. :( regards, dan carpenter