From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751192AbWGUVRl (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:17:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751194AbWGUVRl (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:17:41 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:16858 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751192AbWGUVRk (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:17:40 -0400 Message-ID: <44C1446A.7060008@pobox.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:17:30 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka J Enberg CC: Panagiotis Issaris , Rolf Eike Beer , Panagiotis Issaris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com, chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil, miquel@df.uba.ar, kkeil@suse.de, benh@kernel.crashing.org, video4linux-list@redhat.com, rmk+mmc@arm.linux.org.uk, Neela.Kolli@engenio.com, vandrove@vc.cvut.cz, adaplas@pol.net, thomas@winischhofer.net, weissg@vienna.at, philb@gnu.org, linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org, jkmaline@cc.hut.fi, paulus@samba.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: Conversions from kmalloc+memset tok(z|c)alloc. References: <20060720190529.GC7643@lumumba.uhasselt.be> <200607210850.17878.eike-kernel@sf-tec.de> <84144f020607202358u4bdc5e7egd4096386751d70f7@mail.gmail.com> <44C07CB2.1040303@pobox.com> <1153474342.9489.8.camel@hemera> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.3 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.2 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pekka J Enberg wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Panagiotis Issaris wrote: >> Ah okay. Up until now, I thought it would be okay to change the style of >> the code if it was listed in the CodingStyle document and in any other >> cause should be left untouched as it would be left to the maintainers >> personal preference. That's why I explicitly asked about the "if ((buf = >> kmalloc(...)==NULL) -> buf = kmalloc(...); if (!buf)" type of changes. >> >> Ofcourse, I should have put cosmetic changes in a separate patch anyway. > > At least Andrew seems to prefer cleaning up in the same patch. Anyway, I > don't think Jeff meant that you shouldn't do any cleanups, but that you > should try to respect the existing style as much possible. Correct. Jeff