Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics?

Path	csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Daniele Nicolodi <daniele@grinta.net>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics?
Date	Mon, 12 Dec 2016 22:10:03 +0100
Message-ID	<sNG1d-R8-49@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<sMWKK-6RV-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sMWKK-6RV-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sMXx7-7n0-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <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>
Dkim-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=grinta.net; s=mail; t=1481576547; bh=6Xy2LWXkoC1lbuByqaACWl5TheheLv/z+VDfx519GVc=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cU8gnybJo+HQt9j17HEbMCidE0aytQ5RYOZbnQ5lCoiGXzdsLYXgOpjW8TY9oBvFc zW4BztBJmtvoRSrKX1BnfnasZzfhxBtYDhRjpYl/H34lV8e6kZxJoV5pbmBHTQ8n08 oKuwDBaq4oeltnO0NpfnShzzb2LSSJR05C0lKFNU=
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID	<linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	44
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc	linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@ispras.ru>, Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date	Mon, 12 Dec 2016 14:02:24 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID	<a694926d-eedd-5d51-54d0-7ba88775c42e@grinta.net>
X-Original-References	<d9a0777b-8ea7-3f7d-4fa2-b16468c4a1a4@users.sourceforge.net> <e20a6835-a404-e894-d0d0-a408bfcd7fb6@users.sourceforge.net> <ecf01283-e2eb-ecef-313f-123ba41c0336@grinta.net> <d3ab238e-02f0-2511-9be1-a1447e7639bc@users.sourceforge.net> <5560ffc2-e17d-5750-24e5-3150aba5d8aa@grinta.net> <ce612b15-0dff-ce33-6b22-3a2775bed4cd@users.sourceforge.net> <581046dd-0a4a-acea-a6a8-8d2469594881@grinta.net> <3d09590c-9a10-f756-1b71-536ea37d8524@users.sourceforge.net>
X-Original-Sender	linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref	csiph.com linux.kernel:1540662

Show key headers only | 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