From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:51083 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752300AbcLJWLN (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2016 17:11:13 -0500 Subject: Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after error detection To: Daniele Nicolodi References: Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Khoroshilov , Hans Verkuil , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 23:10:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > kfree() is safe to call on a NULL pointer. This is true. > Despite that, you have found several instances of similar constructs: Yes. - Special source code search pattern can point such places out for further considerations. > Didn't it occur to you that maybe those constructs are fine the way > they are and this is the idiomatic way to write that kind of code? Such a programming approach might look convenient. - I would prefer a safer coding style for the corresponding exception handling. > Why are you submitting patches implementing changes that have already > been rejected? The feedback to my update mixture is varying between acceptance and disagreements as usual. > Judging from your recent submissions, it seems that this process is not > working well for you. I'm probably not the only one that is wonderign > what are you trying to obtain with your patch submissions, other than > having your name in the git log. I am picking some change possibilities up in the hope of related software improvements. Regards, Markus