Re: [0/2] net/smc: Adjustments for two function implementations

[Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>]

…
>>    Return directly after a failed kzalloc() in smc_fill_gid_list()
>>    Improve exception handling in smc_llc_cli_add_link_invite()
>>
>>   net/smc/af_smc.c  |  2 +-
>>   net/smc/smc_llc.c | 15 +++++++--------
>>   2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
…
> However, I'm on the same page with Wen Gu. I could not see the necessity of the patches.
> BTW, if you want to send fix patches,

I obviously propose to adjust specific implementation details.


> please provide the error messages you met,

This development concern does not apply here.


> the procedure of reproducing the issue and the correspoinding commit messages.

Would you like to extend the usage of source code analysis tools?


> If you want to send feature patches, I'd like to see a well thought-out patch or patch series.

I presented some thoughts for special transformation patterns
on several software components.


> E.g. In our component, the kfree(NULL) issue doesn't only occur in the positions where you mentioned in the patch series, also somewhere else.

Does your feedback indicate that you would support the avoidance of such a special function call
at more places?


> I would be grateful if all of them would be cleaned up, not just some pieces.

Do you find my patch series too small for the mentioned Linux module at the moment?

Regards,
Markus