From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753264AbcLLWLe (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:11:34 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]:55887 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751702AbcLLWLc (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:11:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Clarification for acceptance statistics? To: Daniele Nicolodi References: <5560ffc2-e17d-5750-24e5-3150aba5d8aa@grinta.net> <581046dd-0a4a-acea-a6a8-8d2469594881@grinta.net> <3d09590c-9a10-f756-1b71-536ea37d8524@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Khoroshilov , Hans Verkuil , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 23:11:16 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:CQ4EwF6CD6lbzhAeiAq2mzGfPtak8eVFMTIwuXcIDVDE/Gjznx0 tQwGBZIMIEWnPsGeOF387oEqmW1/Af1r+F64atQ5z33WQt1q3uScKAhPD3R/drY/G5jOXuL TdXubfMgUbJGeXQXzdVuhkgaFUtWD/mYOCPF+HpDAWV3ATIx8WjdsUOq41T1BzhqtCRHg76 9oCm1Fl1lzaSNGp9IehCw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:C63ngMkS/cE=:zSwI4soiJur7wQTaAfUnnv kU+GiB4Ze/rtonsLpz47gmTr1Cz1yo4nC46ciYeh+1v9UJaOBIJuL5ewxaNiH6dDZylRVhljr p1RLykI5JPnc/x5bUY69sY3Httwd768ilWDa2sVBZ5d/skVauNRicX/IQGfKJIPlh8CwylQ7r XQirz/l/+5k0SAj5XodIjYdbGzOqXACARXTVOV7zcCABDu/ND65E47m5XrrS65FcopmWYIAUs Ft4F9fdYyYPWSwogU3Z3v18YVgOHWxE2qA59WscnL3Ia3NkyDxPPyaSVzvlqzhrnFL42TCtAa xinP2kC8nIGwYUup5ZowjWJ2Z1UHm1W10QfHGCFvq/4jclBiaWyhadDQhcVOcu6b/Wz8dKv+J v68E+NV1mQtZiJ60utCFGuR0LZg4MJJe9959RNe/i0I+aVTX6GosS9CS2LH82dvylRJztUP3l I7rIFadFwsVCm5RnftIsfW7L9AETmNDi/o6KbSroRSmTFs77S9dXh1aDheYCA5fR6R4KJJl8s Lwsgzj0+7glNMNMFSqHtnjD3xRSSx1zksceyj5VWp4rvllY2DcGyGsiZIALI2epUjCcb2qAZN AYpgk4HvtXjW5Lq8GUyPXTZgIMpUqlAzL/zRlI5R38p9EoCI/pJWvx3h7pPLAiwagreq9ItTr JNTQKlYx27sHKc7jQcE8BnL2KexUV3/4QQECTsW5qdzmMpXKif2EjDuUJMqtYO9muvOlYzQ2Y 4CgRDQ46ISCtQsKUR0nincTRX+Yxz1VJqzO5xBME6+u8PPJLsAZNJnY35pWvhtmmjNwuW1+bj BddRKYV Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > The question was: have you ever had a patch changing code in the form > > { > a = kmalloc(...); > b = kmalloc(...); > > if (!a || !b) > goto out; > > ... > > out: > kfree(a); > kfree(b); > } > > to something else, accepted? It seems that this case did not happen for me so far if you are looking for this exact source code search pattern. Variants of the current pattern were occasionally discussed a bit. > I went checking and I haven't found such a patch. A few similar update suggestions are still in development waiting queues. > Did you understand my question? Partly. - My interpretation of similar changes was eventually too broad in my previous answer. >> It is really needed to clarify the corresponding software development >> history any further? > > It is relevant because you are submitting a patch and your changelog > implies that it makes the code follow some code structure rule that > needs to be applied to the kernel. I am proposing a change which was described also around various other functions in some software already. > As the above is a recurring pattern in kernel code, it is legitimate > to ask if such a rule exist, and has been enforced before, or you are > making it up. I got the impression that special software development habits can also evolve over time. > As a proposer of a new pattern, what is the evidence you can bring to > the discussion that supports that your solution is better? I am trying to increase the software development attention on error detection and corresponding exception handling at various places. > What is the metric you are using to define "better"? Do response times for system failures matter here? Regards, Markus