From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754734AbdK1Lli (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 06:41:38 -0500 Received: from eddie.linux-mips.org ([148.251.95.138]:34950 "EHLO cvs.linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751453AbdK1Lle (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 06:41:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:41:30 +0100 From: Ladislav Michl To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Julia Lawall , Joe Perches , "Andrew F. Davis" , Arvind Yadav , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Tomi Valkeinen , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions Message-ID: <20171128114130.GA1615@lenoch> References: <1511809633.32426.70.camel@perches.com> <1511833514.32426.86.camel@perches.com> <7e7e64cf-dbe5-614a-f1e5-29d7b6cf9297@users.sourceforge.net> <1511856244.19952.14.camel@perches.com> <0ecf4b17-7757-adb4-b978-a80ebb15cfe6@users.sourceforge.net> <28816ce9-9d62-7d61-1889-64407eececca@users.sourceforge.net> <20171128102327.GA30267@lenoch> <796a5c89-7c72-776d-e769-e52f5e5bf43f@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <796a5c89-7c72-776d-e769-e52f5e5bf43f@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:50:14AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> How will this aspect evolve further? > > > > I do not follow. > > Interesting … > > > This is OMAP framebuffer driver, so in this case, there is zero variation. > > How much are you interested to compare differences in build results > also for this software module because of varying parameters? > > Which parameters were applied for your size comparisons so far? It was just omap2plus_defconfig build using gcc-7.2.0 > > Could you, please, review following patch > > I assume that other OMAP developers are in a better position to decide > about the deletion of extra memory allocations (instead of keeping > questionable error messages). > > > and verify is it satisfies your automated static code analysis test? > > I am not going to “verify” your update suggestion by my evolving approaches > around the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software) at the moment. As you are sending patches as Markus Elfring I would expect you take Coccinelle's suggestion into account and actually try to understand code before sending patch. That suggestion may lead to actual bug in code which your patch just leaves unnoticed as it is not apparent from the patch itself (no, not talking about this very patch it all started with) That said, I'm considering Markus Elfring being a human. If you do not like reactions to your patches or are interested only in improving tool that generates them, it would be better to just setup a "tip bot for Markus Elfring" and let it send patches automatically. This way noone is going to waste time on them as it would be clear those are purely machine only generated and there's no point to reply. The way you are sending patches makes impression (at least to me), that you spent some time on fixing issue Coccinelle found and not just shut the warning up. > But I thank you for this contribution. > How will further feedback evolve for such an idea? And the idea is? > Regards, > Markus Thank you, ladis