Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics?

From	Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics?
Date	2016-12-12 22:10 +0100
Message-ID	<sNG1d-R8-49@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <sMY9P-7QR-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sNkk1-4jg-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sNtnj-1u2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sNtnj-1u2-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sNDcZ-7Bu-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/12/16 11:03 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Have you proposed a similar patch that was accepted?
> 
> Yes. - It happened a few times.

The question was: have you ever had a patch changing code in the form

{
	a = kmalloc(...);
	b = kmalloc(...);

	if (!a || !b)
		goto out;

	...

out:
	kfree(a);
	kfree(b);
}

to something else, accepted?

I went checking and I haven't found such a patch.

Did you understand my question?

> It is really needed to clarify the corresponding software development
> history any further?

It is relevant because you are submitting a patch and your changelog
implies that it makes the code follow some code structure rule that
needs to be applied to the kernel. As the above is a recurring pattern
in kernel code, it is legitimate to ask if such a rule exist, and has
been enforced before, or you are making it up.

My conclusion is that you are making it up.

As a proposer of a new pattern, what is the evidence you can bring to
the discussion that supports that your solution is better? What is the
metric you are using to define "better"?

Cheers,
Daniele

Thread

Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after  error detection Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> - 2016-12-11 23:00 +0100
  Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after  error detection Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> - 2016-12-12 08:40 +0100
    Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after  error detection SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
      Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after  error detection Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> - 2016-12-12 19:00 +0100
    Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-12-12 19:10 +0100
      Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics? Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> - 2016-12-12 22:10 +0100
        Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics? SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-12-12 23:20 +0100
          Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics? Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net> - 2016-12-13 00:20 +0100
    Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after  error detection Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-12-12 20:20 +0100
  Re: [media] bt8xx: One function call less in bttv_input_init() after  error detection SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-12-12 08:40 +0100

csiph-web