Re: [PATCH 0/3] isdn: patches for 2.6.31

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:38:26 +0200

> On 01.06.2009 12:04, David Miller wrote:
>> First problem in the second patch.  You're doing two things
>> at once.  You're adding function documentation and also adding
>> a NULL pointer check.
> 
> No problem. I can split the patch in two if you prefer it that way.

Thanks.

>> Second problem, the NULL pointer check is gratuitous.  Document
>> that the 'm' member has to be non-NULL and leave the check out.
> 
> That would be a bad solution for two reasons:
> First, the 'm' member is private to capiutil.{c,h}. Callers are
> not supposed to access it. Therefore it shouldn't be referred to
> in the interface documentation. At best, such a mention would
> leave users of the function confused how to assure that condition.
> At worst, it might mislead them into meddling directly with the
> member, thereby producing incorrect code.
> And second, the main use of capi_cmsg2str() is for error reporting
> and debugging output. Oopsing in an error handler is particularly
> troublesome. At the same time, the risk of the 'm' member being
> unexpectedly NULL is particularly high when something has gone
> wrong already. So a safety check is advisable in this case.

Fair enough.

> PS: Any objections against the other two patches?

I don't remember it's been so many days since I looked at
this series :-(