From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753305AbaLTQRv (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:17:51 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:65250 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753004AbaLTQRr (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:17:47 -0500 Message-ID: <5495A118.8030802@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:17:28 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lino Sanfilippo CC: David Miller , Sergei Shtylyov , Paul Mackerras , linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] net-PPP: Deletion of a few unnecessary checks References: <548B1E44.6050005@users.sourceforge.net> <20141212.115922.687789059853236747.davem@davemloft.net> <54930D7C.3000901@users.sourceforge.net> <20141218.122556.2148647081075440879.davem@davemloft.net> <54958B8C.7010105@users.sourceforge.net> <54959A3A.4030104@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <54959A3A.4030104@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:DAl5HvM2s1Zaj7qBl/oGmaNEYG/bTXA11xVFDhCJPEKPVt8LPxt I21LTH/W5agGUnuQuXJPek1pDcQ8E776BDLkTVvEXYylcA1hOxQ6wKBHo7v+QHY5m2QSHd7 jYNYeL2rNtiNWO82kkDSCRmhis5ncUQ7a8wtVwYViV0t2IlJpZZbn3G8iEZZYQWWxCjQ+QO rmCgc0KikMbAbD3C5Mbzw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I think what David said was pretty clear: If you see code like the above > there is no need to refactor it. I can understand this view in principle. > That does not mean that this is the _preferred_ way of error handling. Can your feedback help in the clarification of suggestions around my update steps one to six for this Linux software module? Regards, Markus