From: SF Markus Elfring
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:55:34 +0100
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:33:45 +0100
>
> The vfree() function performs also input parameter validation.
> Thus the test around the call is not needed.
>
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle sof
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:33:45 +0100
The vfree() function performs also input parameter validation.
Thus the test around the call is not needed.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring
Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang
---
driv
From: SF Markus Elfring
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:18:31 +0100
>> Whereas if you learn how to base your changes cleanly on the correct
>> base now, all of your future submissions will go quickly and smoothly
>> into my tree.
>
> My reluctance to work with more Linux repositories will evolve
> ove
> Whereas if you learn how to base your changes cleanly on the correct
> base now, all of your future submissions will go quickly and smoothly
> into my tree.
My reluctance to work with more Linux repositories will evolve
over time. The faster affected software versions can be rebuilt
the more it
>> I imagine than someone other can also pick up this update suggestion
>> (a simple change of two lines) quicker before I might try another
>> software build again from a different commit as a base.
>
> I have no idea why someone would do that.
I imagine that other software users (besides me) li
From: SF Markus Elfring
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 01:51:24 +0100
>> This has nothing to do with me asking you to frame your patches
>> against the correct tree.
>
> I imagine than someone other can also pick up this update suggestion
> (a simple change of two lines) quicker before I might try anoth
On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 01:51 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with me asking you to frame your patches
> > against the correct tree.
>
> I imagine than someone other can also pick up this update suggestion
> (a simple change of two lines) quicker before I might try another
> This has nothing to do with me asking you to frame your patches
> against the correct tree.
I imagine than someone other can also pick up this update suggestion
(a simple change of two lines) quicker before I might try another
software build again from a different commit as a base.
Regards,
Mar
From: SF Markus Elfring
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:15:42 +0100
>> This does not apply to the net-next tree, please respin.
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> How do you think about to try out the scripts which I published
> in March to get more constructive feedback?
This has nothing to do with me
> This does not apply to the net-next tree, please respin.
Thanks for your reply.
How do you think about to try out the scripts which I published
in March to get more constructive feedback?
Will they run faster for another analysis on current
Linux source files with your test systems (than my com
From: SF Markus Elfring
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:25:27 +0100
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:15:21 +0100
>
> The vfree() function performs also input parameter validation. Thus the test
> around the call is not needed.
>
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle sof
a Lawall
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] net: Hyper-V: Deletion of an unnecessary check
> before the function call "vfree"
>
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:15:21 +0100
>
> The vfree() function performs also input parameter validation. Thus the
> test
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:15:21 +0100
The vfree() function performs also input parameter validation. Thus the test
around the call is not needed.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring
---
drivers/net/hyperv/netvsc.c | 3 +-
13 matches
Mail list logo