On Fri, 2017-05-12 at 09:32 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> Will patches be picked up also from contributors who got a special
> development reputation anyhow?
Yes.
Developer reputation matters for somewhat controversial
patches being applied as well as non-controversial and
obviously correct p
>> Just because an automated tool says that this needs to change does not
>> mean it has to.
>
> Checkpatch.pl is correct here. This message is useless. It's during
> init so it's unlikely to fail ever. In current kernels small kmallocs
> are quaranteed to succeed so it can't actually fail curr
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 09:30:15AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c b/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c
> > index 6802d74f162c..96328aebae5a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c
> > @@ -1149,7 +1149,5 @@ struct hv_device *vmbus_device_
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:36:44 +0200
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Taking out the message assumes that all callers of this function either log
> > an
> > error or pass appropriate error code back to userspace.
>
> Do you like the default error response by Linux memory allocation functions?
The
> Taking out the message assumes that all callers of this function either log an
> error or pass appropriate error code back to userspace.
Do you like the default error response by Linux memory allocation functions?
Regards,
Markus
___
devel mailing lis
On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:17:01 +0200
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 17:33:14 +0200
>
> Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function.
>
> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>
> Link:
> http://events.linux
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 17:33:14 +0200
Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in this function.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Link:
http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/LCJ16-Refactor_Strings-WSang_0.pdf
Sign
