Re: [PATCH v2] kernel/itimer.c: beautify code, not need check 'value', so save one instruction, simpler and easier for readers.t

[Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com>]

On 06/25/2013 07:28 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>> > >> > Also can let code simpler and easier for readers: if checking parameter
>>>>> > >> > 'value', it will easily lead readers to think about why not return
>>>>> > >> > -EINVAL instead of -EFAULT, when checking parameter failed.
>>> > > So you are seriously claiming, that the check for !value makes people
>>> > > think that the return value should be -EINVAL?
>>> > > 
>>> > > That's hillarious.
>>> > > 
>> > That seems not a quite polite word, is it ?  ;-)
> My apologies for being so impolite. Let me rephrase it. Here is a
> "sample" changelog for your patch:
> 

It doesn't matter, I really don't (shouldn't) care about it.

Next time, I should try to send patch carefully, so may save the
maintainers' timer resource.

And excuse me for my poor English and either not familiar with kernel, I
am trying to improve them, and keep improving them.


>   Subject: itimers: Remove bogus NULL pointer check in sys_getitimer()
> 
>     People might be tricked into assuming that the return value for a
>     failed NULL pointer check should be -EINVAL instead of -EFAULT.
> 
>     Remove the misleading NULL pointer check to fix this nuisance.
> 
>     Aside of that this patch fixes the problem of NOMMU kernels, where
>     a NULL pointer dereference is a valid operation. This allows to
>     boot NOMMU kernels without working around the shortcomings of the
>     getitimer() system call, which have been ignored since this NULL
>     pointer check was introduced in Linux 0.96a.
> 

Really very good comments, at least for me now, I really can not write a
comment like that.

> 
> Please resubmit.

I will send patch v4 (patch v3 has sent, and should be obsoleted)

Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Asianux Corporation