From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752228AbdK1SJe (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:09:34 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:51099 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751537AbdK1SJc (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:09:32 -0500 Subject: Re: omapfb/dss: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in three functions To: Ladislav Michl , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Julia Lawall , Joe Perches , "Andrew F. Davis" , Arvind Yadav , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Tomi Valkeinen , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org References: <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> <20171128114130.GA1615@lenoch> <20171128175016.GA3501@lenoch> From: SF Markus Elfring Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:09:11 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171128175016.GA3501@lenoch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:L/IgH2Hny62Wn9e/pftyY0c1uE31figQGcaq9ioWJTqPUIa8KL4 XZakBLKzXkRyvs3ErzovcIle+PB9snfSF8ZVDpAJ2GsEfrbGnVlAmS5EWMdFBXtPPQpY2jX DYIHEGCkyINwD0qNutODUDDPBwYCIRJXfSy2Q/hZ865tyzcTEOox3gaMj4hdGf0/ZeIkxHb qcHwDkKJ0CVT5AfF0Ecqg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:oiKm5r8Xb1A=:kwjFylTCFgkjmw4pkon36Y 1BjGjNRToWO3viFPC5MzzxfaXrtba6+u/3uMDuw2Y229rp/jS/rTZVWleme0JutErOP1gGGi3 XooRtRFpuaTGdkWMCnpNRg5JuAy4tItXkwgV0yEpEvBy+o5JHWLWDyJtLik5f2w6lfF6BOMTe Ci27+jZYwVM8Zki/dTwyjBvC4PBcTYdXE+3vkbKmO693jnAfNRu5mNmSVqsT0RxGVaCgxyuG8 43UKzZ6ui7ESUnc8IymH8GN5WAu6PnZ0EDUQXxwcxn0bvmhO+wQ6qWsLVWY09ysRDOG0C7pok 5COvXVmfDHwvLrrcyV5RSJr+sutRJVrmN2rm+54HxciUMFT7+XU2JwwrZ5G9YQULKCDSfgh3l qIRmWuess7jjGYhm9N3BY8eCybwLTpP9bkrAMsqmDYpUl5hdZJwbyCGwKC7pGZpBYA7U33VV+ rEbSuMicLZQ1gYB8p1NqM7dha7jQX2TbvRmLpHBo/kzxKf+b+ekNiL1ImSkuaW+MX8UMNH1cp LiPZmPYzcbNgJxwFymQz4gAd8Ehf/38iBRQW+9yf7F4JuK54WtDLdKl2iSi8h8Wz2+4ThuWTH ghdZeUOEjvvZSKeZiPhnhx4maun1gIeYm4FI9z2qmHOWo079WUdtz21W+kntUYM2dCD6ffcpt rTSKISiHtJp/g97CzVzi2ya+zotzFRTEVaBnL2KAdhW0kER3gwjky4Q7TBTMBTIKmS3SfnC/o uBaaQV0vwgC2a3I8BOO8feK6FMIfMA6t89aDtt7GhBBtme/Cd2r6cvYtQkj65RjOIuxY/bxuu yU0tUT+0XUV+0O2yDnhbQc165S27Geblj+5u+jDz+rrdTB4BUo= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Additional improvement possibilities can be taken into account >> after corresponding software development discussions, can't they? > > Sure, but that is in contrary to all you replies. Where do you see a contradiction in this case? > I guess you are familiar with Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst chapter 8. I hope so in principle. > No matter that patch was generated or suggested by a tool, you sent > it and normal review procedure follows. This is generally fine. > And here you ignored _all_ suggestions I did not integrate a few of them for my commit message so far because it seems that there are open issues for further clarification. Do you want that I send a second approach for this software module before your own evolving update suggestion? > and concentrate solely on improving Coccinelle scripts. I hope not. > On kernel related lists suggestions to patch itself are discussed. This is usual. > Whenever you take them into account while developing Coccinelle > is up to you (on the Cocci list). This is also happening, isn't it? Regards, Markus