A quick guide to why stand-alone checkpatch patches suck...

[Greg Freemyer]

On September 17, 2014 7:53:24 AM EDT, nick <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 14-09-17 07:51 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:08 PM, nick <xerofoify at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14-09-17 07:20 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>   anyway, it's time for coffee.
>>>>
>>>> rday
>>>>
>>> Rday and others,
>>> That's not what I wanted I was trying to improve my rep after
>getting banned from vger.org and now it seems
>>> I can't even get a patch right. In addition I was trying to do check
>patch because  it was easier for me
>>> due to not understanding some parts of the code.
>>> Nick
>>>
>> 
>> try to understand the code first. if you do not understand the code
>> how do you know that your patch will not break any part of the logic
>.
>> ok , by adding blank lines you will not break the logic.
>> but yesterday in your other patch you removed an error message . may
>i
>> ask why did you think that error message is not required ?
>> 
>> thanks
>> sudip
>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Kernelnewbies mailing list
>>> Kernelnewbies at kernelnewbies.org
>>> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
>I thought that the return statement of NULL to a caller was enough.
>Nick 

Uh...

I don't know that chunk of code, but error messages that go to the kernel log exist for a specific reason.  Taking them out requires a specific reason.

Ie. This would make a good commit message "At this point the condition is well understood and the code that handles it is well tested and has been stable for 3 years, thus removing the error message."

Greg

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.