From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:55:19 -0800 From: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls Message-ID: <20150119185519.GK9759@ld-irv-0074> References: <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Dan Carpenter , SF Markus Elfring Cc: Ursula Braun , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Frank Blaschka , linux390@de.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I went digging through some of Markus's old patch history, and noticed this... On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 12:50:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > This one is buggy. > > I'm sorry, but please stop sending these. I'm tending to concur. > For kfree(), at least we all know that kfree() accepts NULL pointer. > But for this one: > 1) I don't know what the functions do so I have to look at the code. > 2) It's in a arch that I don't compile so cscope isn't set up meaning > it's hard to find the functions. > > You're sending a lot of patches and they are all hard to review and some > of them are buggy and none of them really add any value. It's a waste > of your time and it's a waste of my time. And you're still sending buggy patches that exhibit the same qualities. They're still wasting Dan's time, and now they're wasting mine. I appreciate automated checkers where they provide added value, but I really feel you haven't done your diligence on them. Regards, Brian