From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752209AbaKCPzW (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:55:22 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:53663 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751619AbaKCPzU (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:55:20 -0500 Message-ID: <5457A560.2020304@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:55:12 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Carpenter CC: Ursula Braun , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Frank Blaschka , linux390@de.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org, Coccinelle Subject: Re: s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls References: <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5453C98C.90105@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ST1AWXf2yQGN7qomDDFQq+go1t9CGWdR7e1F5S+9PzwpFhtHcxJ S3uH5ZnfH86T2SrwdZ1REB3wXzY/+LbdK7SrVK8hOC/kUN+O7mxMi96JnfEkriqh2zuDKHd h+E7maYrOgN81DDUaCQ45McsYU+OmOkPhgpvQVBs9i+Z3+QNZBwzP7Ac/r2WqdAWJrPDNUs 8lgAzBN59haEQ4XVr88qg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > This one is buggy. I am still interested to clarify this opinion a bit more. > I'm sorry, but please stop sending these. I am going to improve more implementation details in affected source files. > But for this one: > 1) I don't know what the functions do so I have to look at the code. I hope that static source code analysis can help here. > 2) It's in a arch that I don't compile so cscope isn't set up meaning > it's hard to find the functions. Do you find the Coccinelle software also useful for your area? > You're sending a lot of patches and they are all hard to review and some > of them are buggy and none of them really add any value. Thanks for your feedback. The suggested source code clean-up might result in a measurable effect depending on the call frequency for the changed functions. Can I help you in any ways to make corresponding review easier? > It's a waste of your time and it's a waste of my time. It can be your choice to reject my update suggestion. Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:55:12 +0000 Subject: Re: s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls Message-Id: <5457A560.2020304@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5453C98C.90105@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > This one is buggy. I am still interested to clarify this opinion a bit more. > I'm sorry, but please stop sending these. I am going to improve more implementation details in affected source files. > But for this one: > 1) I don't know what the functions do so I have to look at the code. I hope that static source code analysis can help here. > 2) It's in a arch that I don't compile so cscope isn't set up meaning > it's hard to find the functions. Do you find the Coccinelle software also useful for your area? > You're sending a lot of patches and they are all hard to review and some > of them are buggy and none of them really add any value. Thanks for your feedback. The suggested source code clean-up might result in a measurable effect depending on the call frequency for the changed functions. Can I help you in any ways to make corresponding review easier? > It's a waste of your time and it's a waste of my time. It can be your choice to reject my update suggestion. Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:55:12 +0100 Subject: [Cocci] s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls In-Reply-To: <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> References: <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <5453C98C.90105@users.sourceforge.net> <20141103095059.GL6879@mwanda> Message-ID: <5457A560.2020304@users.sourceforge.net> To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > This one is buggy. I am still interested to clarify this opinion a bit more. > I'm sorry, but please stop sending these. I am going to improve more implementation details in affected source files. > But for this one: > 1) I don't know what the functions do so I have to look at the code. I hope that static source code analysis can help here. > 2) It's in a arch that I don't compile so cscope isn't set up meaning > it's hard to find the functions. Do you find the Coccinelle software also useful for your area? > You're sending a lot of patches and they are all hard to review and some > of them are buggy and none of them really add any value. Thanks for your feedback. The suggested source code clean-up might result in a measurable effect depending on the call frequency for the changed functions. Can I help you in any ways to make corresponding review easier? > It's a waste of your time and it's a waste of my time. It can be your choice to reject my update suggestion. Regards, Markus