From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933897AbdK1LCx (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 06:02:53 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]:53248 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933751AbdK1Kuf (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 05:50:35 -0500 Subject: Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions To: Ladislav Michl , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Julia Lawall , Joe Perches , "Andrew F. Davis" , Arvind Yadav , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Tomi Valkeinen , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org References: <1511809633.32426.70.camel@perches.com> <1511833514.32426.86.camel@perches.com> <7e7e64cf-dbe5-614a-f1e5-29d7b6cf9297@users.sourceforge.net> <1511856244.19952.14.camel@perches.com> <0ecf4b17-7757-adb4-b978-a80ebb15cfe6@users.sourceforge.net> <28816ce9-9d62-7d61-1889-64407eececca@users.sourceforge.net> <20171128102327.GA30267@lenoch> From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: <796a5c89-7c72-776d-e769-e52f5e5bf43f@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:50:14 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171128102327.GA30267@lenoch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Xk0S6WO71FhG5HYTZiPB1VJVRchOAmEFxjzJiFls1sfoS83olWI Lz0yZQqBtQDemU/PXDxThVcUsP5YRNedTI95Td3BFIeHjFmQO7dcb9nIZTcqwvQc7ke8iYS fG8SaJWj6BCAxCIr4d1AxfBWkxQPEmF4Txvl+Jdj8n/1sFkduaz2L30nVCBN11IBQFPs0qb vkySJeh88EWFG+lxR8Maw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:8rtacm/vBZQ=:/W516vFoA8JxTJHbCC78iO KLTLOuHACs9BxuG2KdqVh/qQWgSTqJ+d1I5kJGXl2QjPp74FAyzzF5mHMLtUfy8DlJRWYbEUj eqm4qTiP27F7kZZGJlyVZglJlc/sICEVrSPobUoLfsGiDOgx2pcaY1gi9FZ0PqqvR0STceiDp 079gSxdoDAhie7aEYGo0VCp+dq7cBM3u9HXkd97DOblkOzmeLyJo1Kx1p11osWlXB9oSGjhHi g23Pj3O+EnsVEs3KOW0OgIz8I0Ot/E7WAeii4m90R5nj4JDTld/Ym9FvBKmSWW+api71HwleN Jj15FKwVwKgZfKTDfYjpnaVJqgeuuhRDE3MG/n+47ebcyzC23miLEDt9vF5ky6mUZUtLKhcAB UgakC9+4uyr46yPI8+lfJE1I1fjILWvlsMpoYidpvmavd0KOuvFsOE+tGqmgA5hnnLpUUI3oM Q/rHXa5E/PHbZegh41YP6REbCNalFibJXjRP73ayA+F5e2sSA4WtnNhFi0wu1g128hnThJ9g0 rPPwZ+Uk81ST1Lu87LgulcpqlsZudwLmlB7P+hcTxlr7XnBSelwDUkzgD8T/AilYMnfh6QqZy WV/3zJHsWMm/mm/+kinf17G+B2FlXxMuowNiXhv/9TS+awtolU0w2YZYBszHzRk9aXG4ZCp06 Eg7vTonvdzItgurs2gM+z6stbYPlpAwQ8OzV+GAUHsp4+VZ1dh5UNpz5YTX49BJpxwUTq7yh4 CaR+7Clh1AYx0A4H7htLs9YE2UJr9aFAW/OWgfv6dJXuJochWV47Y9BjJg769kKAW0GTJDn0n yS2LP+z3MSrmUH/f725nyo4dR84zTjZt6xywZBsY1BlYvCca2I= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> How will this aspect evolve further? > > I do not follow. Interesting … > This is OMAP framebuffer driver, so in this case, there is zero variation. How much are you interested to compare differences in build results also for this software module because of varying parameters? Which parameters were applied for your size comparisons so far? > Could you, please, review following patch I assume that other OMAP developers are in a better position to decide about the deletion of extra memory allocations (instead of keeping questionable error messages). > and verify is it satisfies your automated static code analysis test? I am not going to “verify” your update suggestion by my evolving approaches around the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software) at the moment. But I thank you for this contribution. How will further feedback evolve for such an idea? Regards, Markus