From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> To: lizhe <sensor1010@163.com> Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com, dyoung@redhat.com, prudo@redhat.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/crash_core.c : Remove redundant checks for ck_cmdline is NULL Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 07:19:07 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20220505231907.GB2331@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220504123623.36852-1-sensor1010@163.com> On 05/04/22 at 05:36am, lizhe wrote: > When ck_cmdline is NULL. The last three lines of > this function(get_last_crashkernel()) are equivalent to : > if (!NULL) > return NULL; > > return NULL; > This is obviously a redundant check Now the patch log correctly reflects the code change, even though the log is a little redundant. While it's far far better than a wrong log which will definitely confuse, even mislead people. I would go with: ====== kernel/crash_core.c : remove redundant check of ck_cmdline At the end of get_last_crashkernel(), the judgement of ck_cmdline is obviously unnecessary and causes redundance, let's clean it up. ====== And the patch version is missing. If you agree on the above log rephrasing, please post v4 with the updated log, and can add my ack: Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> Thanks Baoquan > > Signed-off-by: lizhe <sensor1010@163.com> > --- > kernel/crash_core.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c > index 256cf6db573c..c232f01a2c54 100644 > --- a/kernel/crash_core.c > +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c > @@ -222,9 +222,6 @@ static __init char *get_last_crashkernel(char *cmdline, > p = strstr(p+1, name); > } > > - if (!ck_cmdline) > - return NULL; > - > return ck_cmdline; > } > > -- > 2.25.1 >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> To: kexec@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH] kernel/crash_core.c : Remove redundant checks for ck_cmdline is NULL Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 07:19:07 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20220505231907.GB2331@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20220504123623.36852-1-sensor1010@163.com> On 05/04/22 at 05:36am, lizhe wrote: > When ck_cmdline is NULL. The last three lines of > this function(get_last_crashkernel()) are equivalent to : > if (!NULL) > return NULL; > > return NULL; > This is obviously a redundant check Now the patch log correctly reflects the code change, even though the log is a little redundant. While it's far far better than a wrong log which will definitely confuse, even mislead people. I would go with: ====== kernel/crash_core.c : remove redundant check of ck_cmdline At the end of get_last_crashkernel(), the judgement of ck_cmdline is obviously unnecessary and causes redundance, let's clean it up. ====== And the patch version is missing. If you agree on the above log rephrasing, please post v4 with the updated log, and can add my ack: Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> Thanks Baoquan > > Signed-off-by: lizhe <sensor1010@163.com> > --- > kernel/crash_core.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/crash_core.c b/kernel/crash_core.c > index 256cf6db573c..c232f01a2c54 100644 > --- a/kernel/crash_core.c > +++ b/kernel/crash_core.c > @@ -222,9 +222,6 @@ static __init char *get_last_crashkernel(char *cmdline, > p = strstr(p+1, name); > } > > - if (!ck_cmdline) > - return NULL; > - > return ck_cmdline; > } > > -- > 2.25.1 >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-05 23:19 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-05-04 12:36 [PATCH] kernel/crash_core.c : Remove redundant checks for ck_cmdline is NULL lizhe 2022-05-04 12:36 ` lizhe 2022-05-05 23:19 ` Baoquan He [this message] 2022-05-05 23:19 ` Baoquan He -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2022-04-25 15:38 lizhe 2022-04-25 15:38 ` lizhe 2022-04-26 8:39 ` Philipp Rudo 2022-04-26 8:39 ` Philipp Rudo [not found] ` <6a0fa9cc.19d4.1808440ca50.Coremail.sensor1010@163.com> 2022-05-03 16:43 ` Philipp Rudo 2022-05-03 16:43 ` Philipp Rudo
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20220505231907.GB2331@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \ --to=bhe@redhat.com \ --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \ --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=prudo@redhat.com \ --cc=sensor1010@163.com \ --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.