From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann Droneaud Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IB/umad: Remove container_of() != NULL tests Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:40:15 +0200 Message-ID: <1399898415.3017.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <53708666.6060209@acm.org> <5370869F.5040103@acm.org> <1399889097.3017.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <5370A41F.8050001@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5370A41F.8050001-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Roland Dreier , Alex Chiang , linux-rdma List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Le lundi 12 mai 2014 =C3=A0 12:36 +0200, Bart Van Assche a =C3=A9crit : > On 05/12/14 12:04, Yann Droneaud wrote: > > Le lundi 12 mai 2014 =C3=A0 10:30 +0200, Bart Van Assche a =C3=A9cr= it : > >> container_of() never returns NULL. Hence remove the code that test= s > >> whether container_of() returns NULL. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche > >> Cc: Alex Chiang > >> Cc: > > The patch seems fine. > > > > But I don't think this one qualify for linux-stable. >=20 > One chunk in patch 3/3 touches code that is also touched by this patc= h. > This means that if only patches 2/3 and 3/3 would be sent to stable t= hat > these wouldn't apply properly. Hence the "Cc: stable" tag in this pat= ch. >=20 You could re-order the patches to make this one apply on top of the two others. Anyway, it's a minor issue that doesn't justifiy by itself to respin th= e patchset. But if you're going to take account of my others remarks, it might be worth to reorder the patchset. Regards. --=20 Yann Droneaud OPTEYA -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html