lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: s390/net: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls
> After your patch then it will print warning messages.

To which messages do you refer to?


> The truth is I think that all these patches are bad and they make the
> code harder to read.
>
> Before: The code is clear and there is no NULL dereference.

Where do you stumble on a null pointer access?


> After: You have to remember that rtw_free_netdev() accepts NULL
> pointers but free_netdev() does not accept NULL pointers.

Are any improvements needed for the corresponding documentation to make it
better accessible besides the source code?


> The if statements are there for *human* readers to understand and you are
> making it harder for humans to understand the code.

Is there a target conflict between source code understandability
and software efficiency?


> Even for kfree(), just removing the if statement is not really the right
> fix. We do it because everyone knows kfree(), but what Julia Lawall
> said is the real correct way change the code and make it simpler for
> people to understand:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/31/452

You refer to another update suggestion for the software area
"staging: rtl8188eu".
Do you find adjustments for jump labels easier to accept than the simple
deletion of specific null pointer checks?


> I know it's fun to send automated patches but these make the code worse
> and they waste reviewer time.

I hope that small automated changes can also help to improve affected
source files.

Regards,
Markus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-03 18:01    [W:0.747 / U:2.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site