From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:13:51 +0000 Subject: Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions Message-Id: List-Id: References: <1511809633.32426.70.camel@perches.com> <1511833514.32426.86.camel@perches.com> <7e7e64cf-dbe5-614a-f1e5-29d7b6cf9297@users.sourceforge.net> <1511856244.19952.14.camel@perches.com> <0ecf4b17-7757-adb4-b978-a80ebb15cfe6@users.sourceforge.net> <28816ce9-9d62-7d61-1889-64407eececca@users.sourceforge.net> <20171128102327.GA30267@lenoch> <796a5c89-7c72-776d-e769-e52f5e5bf43f@users.sourceforge.net> <20171128114130.GA1615@lenoch> In-Reply-To: <20171128114130.GA1615@lenoch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Ladislav Michl , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , "Andrew F. Davis" , Julia Lawall , Tomi Valkeinen , Joe Perches , Arvind Yadav >> I am not going to “verify” your update suggestion by my evolving approaches >> around the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software) at the moment. > > As you are sending patches as Markus Elfring I am contributing also some update suggestions. > I would expect you take Coccinelle's suggestion into account The proposed change is based on a semantic patch script which I developed with the support of other well-known Linux contributors. > and actually try to understand code before sending patch. I concentrated my understanding on the concrete transformation pattern in this use case. > That suggestion may lead to actual bug in code which your patch just leaves > unnoticed as it is not apparent from the patch itself There can be other change possibilities left over as usual. > (no, not talking about this very patch it all started with) Thanks for your distinction. > That said, I'm considering Markus Elfring being a human. Thanks for this view. > If you do not like reactions to your patches I am looking for constructive responses. - Disagreements can trigger special communication challenges. > or are interested only in improving tool that generates them, How do you think about to look at any more background information? https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/ > it would be better to just setup a "tip bot for Markus > Elfring" and let it send patches automatically. There is already an other automatic source code analysis system active. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle > The way you are sending patches makes impression (at least to me), > that you spent some time on fixing issue Coccinelle found Yes. - This view is appropriate. > and not just shut the warning up. Additional improvement possibilities can be taken into account after corresponding software development discussions, can't they? Regards, Markus